NIH: 100M Years to Change a Binding Site

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
NIH: 100M Years to Change a Binding Site

This is the show from Friday February 4th, 2011.

SUMMARY:

* What's a Binding Site and How Long to Evolve a Change? Real Science Radio co-hosts Fred Williams and Bob Enyart describe a binding site (see picture below), which is a place on a protein or in DNA where other molecules can attach, somewhat like the shuttle docking to the space station. And according to an article at the National Institutes of Health, it would take 100 million years by a Darwinian process to change a single binding site in the human genome. Oops. Supposedly ALL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION from small Australopithecus chimp-like creatures to Homo sapiens has happened in only five million years. Then how could it take 100 million years just to change a binding site? This is yet another nail in Charles Darwin's coffin beneath the Westminster Abbey. This 2008 NIH article abstract shows 100 million years to get a particular binding site change by mutation within humans, but only a few million years in fruit flies. And this great ID article by Douglas Axe exploits the NIH finding for human beings and for bugs. For example, when fruit flies are evolving a different binding site, this can happen in a few million years only if the intermediary stages are assumed to be 100% fit as compared to the original functioning binding site. But using the NIH methodology, if only a 5% reduction in fitness is presumed, fruit flies will take 400 million years to evolve a changed binding site. And of course, in 400 million years, Darwinists don't believe that only a single binding site has changed for a single bug, but that the entire evolution of all insects occurred.

* Information is Another Nail Still: Bob and Fred also offer their own two proofs that information is not physical...
- Bob: transmitting data via fiber optic cable at the speed of light, and
- Fred: weighing a flash drive after deleting half the photos on it
These two proofs demonstrate that Einstein was correct in that information is NOT physical. Also, this RSR show recalls that taking the arrangement of grains of sand on a beach and fully randomizing them (by letting kids play there for example) will not in any way prevent the beach from fulfilling it's function as a beach, whereas fully randomizing the letters in an encyclopedia will destroy the encyclopedia's function. Many evolutionists refuse to acknowledge this simple statement of Shannon information theory because it is a threat to the belief that the extensive information required to form the first reproducing organism could not assemble by random chance.

Post-show Note on Einstein's Gulf: Regarding that extraordinary "gulf" between matter and information, as Bob previously posted on TOL in A Christian Answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma:

…while matter can be arranged to represent data, data itself is not material. In 1936 Einstein famously wrote, "the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible," and in 1944, remarking about Russell, he described the ability to get from matter to ideas as a "gulf–logically unbridgeable," which some scientists and linguists refer to as Einstein's Gulf…"

* Today's Resource: Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? Check out especially Walt Brown's
In the Beginning and Bob's interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week! You'll also love Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez' Privileged Planet (clip), and Illustra Media's Unlocking the Mystery of Life You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob Enyart's Age of the Earth Debate; Bob's debate about Junk DNA with famous evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott; And the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI's tremendous Creation magazine!

* Special Editions of Real Science Radio:
- BEL's famous List of Not-So-Old Things
- Bob's debate with Christian Darwinist British author James Hannam
- PZ Myers blogs against Real Science Radio so Bob hits back with the Trochlea Challenge
- Waiting for Darwin's Other Shoe: Evolution mag's cover story Darwin Was Wrong on the Tree of Life
- Microbiologist in Studio: Bob talks with the Creation Research Society Quarterly editor about new genetic findings
- Caterpillar Kills Atheism: describe how a bug could evolve to liquefy itself and then build itself into a flying creature
- And see RSR Offer of $2,000 to get 16 letters of the alphabet in their correct places; $500 pd in 1998; $1,500 in 2010!

For our RSR Friends: in case you miss other BEL programs, here are some of the atheists Bob Enyart has debated:
- ABC's Reginald Finley, called The Infidel Guy, from ABC's Wife Swap program; 3-26-07;
- TheologyOnline's psychologist Zakath in a 10-round moderated written online debate, also available in soft cover;
- TOL's member who calls himself Fool; 3-28-06;
- John Henderson who wrote the book God.com 6-15-2006;
- Carlos Morales, Fox News, Huffington Post, etc. reports on U of Texas atheists Bible-turn in program, president of Atheist Agenda 7-14-10
- Freedom from Religion Foundation's Dan Barker (put the atheist sign near the Nativity at the capitol in Seattle) who was involved with the ministry of Kathryn Kuhlman, one of a group of so-called faith healers. (See a BEL listener who initially compared Bob to Benny Hinn until...) The BEL show was on 12-11-08;
- Michael Shermer, an editor with Scientific American and the Skeptic Society who in in this famous 73-second excerpt on BEL denied that the sun is a light, illustrating that it's tough debating atheists when they're hesitant to admit to even the most obvious common ground. 8-28-03
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DavisBJ

New member
Has Enyart or anyone else actually READ the original paper and not just the abstract?

The paper is attacking Michale Behe's arguments, not supporting them . . . :kookoo:
Many, if not most of the so-called “errors” that Creationists perceive in evolution and science involve a distorted simplistic presentation of something complex. That seems to be what they did again in this case. You must admit, in the abstract for the article (and abstracts are intentionally simplified summaries) it says: “…for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take >100 million years.” That’s looks like good ammo for lots of YEC’s to abscond with, especially considering the daunting level of math the article relies on for those scientists who dare to really attempt a technical understanding.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Has Enyart or anyone else actually READ the original paper and not just the abstract? The paper is attacking Michale Behe's arguments, not supporting them . . . :kookoo:
:squint:

What are you on about now?

Atheists love to point to the fact that someone is an evolutionist as if that is reason to believe them.
 

DavisBJ

New member
:squint:

What are you on about now?

Atheists love to point to the fact that someone is an evolutionist as if that is reason to believe them.
I don't see that Alate even used the word "evolutionist". What are you talking about?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I don't see that Alate even used the word "evolutionist".
Perhaps you aren't reading between the same lines I am. :idunno:

What are you talking about?
Whenever a creationist uses evidence presented by an evolutionist other evolutionists think their use is invalid because the evolutionist believes in evolution. They haven't cottoned on to the fact that in order to prop up a lie, evolutionists are frequently forced to include the truth in their presentations.
 

DavisBJ

New member
Perhaps you aren't reading between the same lines I am. :idunno:
Then it wasn’t what Alate said, but what you infer Alate was saying.
Whenever a creationist uses evidence presented by an evolutionist other evolutionists think their use is invalid because the evolutionist believes in evolution. They haven't cottoned on to the fact that in order to prop up a lie, evolutionists are frequently forced to include the truth in their presentations.
I don’t follow. Specific example, please.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Then it wasn’t what Alate said, but what you infer Alate was saying.
I wasn't talking about anything Alate was saying. :idunno:

I don’t follow. Specific example, please.

Sure. Alate provided a perfect example. Pastor Enyart shows an evolutionist saying binding sites take 100,000,000 years to change from one to another. Alate thinks that the fact the authors are evolutionists means Enyart's use of this research is invalid.

Typical atheist behaviour.
 

Jukia

New member
Has Enyart or anyone else actually READ the original paper and not just the abstract?

The paper is attacking Michale Behe's arguments, not supporting them . . . :kookoo:

Nah, they would have to understand the math. Not very likely. Much easier to take the word of an IDer, who probably does not understand the math either.
I note that the article Pastor Bob and his buddy cited makes no suggestion for a specific different theory.
 

Jukia

New member
I wasn't talking about anything Alate was saying. :idunno:



Sure. Alate provided a perfect example. Pastor Enyart shows an evolutionist saying binding sites take 100,000,000 years to change from one to another. Alate thinks that the fact the authors are evolutionists means Enyart's use of this research is invalid.

Typical atheist behaviour.

No, I think Alate was suggesting that Pastor Bob misunderstood the paper, probably because he never read it.
But that's OK, we are all familiar with your defense of misrepresentation and half truth.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That's not at all what Alate was saying.
I'm still not sure what Alate's actual point was. She hasn't explained herself after I asked.

This is the best I can do with what I have. If you have a better idea of what she is trying to say, feel free to share. :up:
 

Jukia

New member
I wasn't talking about anything Alate was saying. :idunno:



Sure. Alate provided a perfect example. Pastor Enyart shows an evolutionist saying binding sites take 100,000,000 years to change from one to another. Alate thinks that the fact the authors are evolutionists means Enyart's use of this research is invalid.

Typical atheist behaviour.

No, I think what Alate suggested was that the paper does not support Pastor Bob. However, to reach that conclusion one would need to read the paper and understand the math rather than just reading the abstract or the review of the abstract/paper by some IDer.
For the record, I took a quick look at the paper and am sure it would take me a good 2 weeks to relearn the math (assuming I ever knoew it in the first place!) to understand it. Although, if I were really interested and thought it drove another stake into poor Chuck's heart I might even try to contact the authors. Fundies would rather quote mine. Much easier and easier to sell to the true believers.
the real issue is the lack of intellectual ability to understand, well actually the real issue is the failure to really bother to try to understand.
Color me surprised.
 

Alate_One

New member
I'm still not sure what Alate's actual point was. She hasn't explained herself after I asked.
I WAS saying Bob doesn't understand the paper. I looked at it and the math is pretty crazy, however the time mentioned for 100M years was only at a population size of 1000.

Populations of most organisms are in big trouble if they get that low, they're generally called endangered species. So asserting that it always takes 100M years to change a binding site PERIOD is misrepresenting the paper since larger populations make things much much easier.

They also specifically take apart Michael Behe's "Edge of Evolution". So trying to say that it supports ID or is anti-evolution is to not actually read the paper.

Bob took one line from the abstract and assumed that was the main and only point of the paper. He even missed the next line of the abstract: "In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe’s arguments concerning
mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution.".


In short more creationist misrepresentation. Not exactly surprising though. :hammer:
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No, I think what Alate suggested was that the paper does not support Pastor Bob.
The paper said the change would take 100,000 years. Pastor Enyart said the change would take 100,000 years. Alate introduced the fact that the paper still assumes evolution which is utterly irrelevant.

However, to reach that conclusion one would need to read the paper and understand the math rather than just reading the abstract
Does the full paper say it would not take 100,000 years? :idunno:

For the record, I took a quick look at the paper and am sure it would take me a good 2 weeks to relearn the math (assuming I ever knoew it in the first place!) to understand it. Although, if I were really interested and thought it drove another stake into poor Chuck's heart I might even try to contact the authors. Fundies would rather quote mine. Much easier and easier to sell to the true believers.
the real issue is the lack of intellectual ability to understand, well actually the real issue is the failure to really bother to try to understand. Color me surprised.
So the sum total of your post is you do not wish to acknowledge Pastor Enyart's position, you can't understand the paper and you're a bigot.

I WAS saying Bob doesn't understand the paper. I looked at it and the math is pretty crazy, however the time mentioned for 100M years was only at a population size of 1000. Populations of most organisms are in big trouble if they get that low, they're generally called endangered species. So asserting that it always takes 100M years to change a binding site PERIOD is misrepresenting the paper since larger populations make things much much easier.
Sounds like something we could discuss. Why didn't you bring this up in your first post instead of the vague and irrational content you chose?

They also specifically take apart Michael Behe's "Edge of Evolution". So trying to say that it supports ID or is anti-evolution is to not actually read the paper.
Who is Michael Behe and who needs this paper to intend non-support of evolution?

Quit trying to hide your logical fallacies. Just stop using them. :up:

Bob took one line from the abstract and assumed that was the main and only point of the paper.
Was the abstract wrong?

He even missed the next line of the abstract: "In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe’s arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution.".
So what? If you want to argue with Michael Behe, go find him. :up:

In short more creationist misrepresentation. Not exactly surprising though. :hammer:
It is you that lies and misrepresents in these discussions. How about trying a simple discussion of the facts and ideas for once?
 

Jukia

New member
Does the full paper say it would not take 100,000 years? :idunno:

So the sum total of your post is you do not wish to acknowledge Pastor Enyart's position, you can't understand the paper and you're a bigot.

Perhaps if you read the paper you might know.

I admit that I do not understand the math.
Sure I acknowledge Pastor Bob's position, it is untenable. If that makes me a bigot, fine with me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top