Monday, July 4, 2011

Glycolysis and the Citric Acid Cycle: The Control of Proteins and Pathways

Automobiles have incredible engines, cooling systems, drive trains, and so forth, but all of this must be controlled. The accelerator, gears and brakes are essential in automobile design. This is even more true in biology where regulation and control at all levels is crucial and incredibly complex, particularly since so much of the control is performed automatically. At the cellular level, the cell’s machines—the proteins—are controlled at several levels. As one leading textbook describes:

A living cell contains thousands of enzymes, many of which operate at the same time and in the same small volume of the cytosol. By their catalytic action, these enzymes generate a complex web of metabolic pathways, each composed of chains of chemical reactions in which the product of one enzyme becomes the substrate of the next. In this maze of pathways, there are many branch points where different enzymes compete for the same substrate. The system is so complex that elaborate controls are required to regulate when and how rapidly each reaction occurs.

Regulation occurs at many levels. At one level, the cell controls how many molecules of each enzyme it makes by regulating the expression of the gene that encodes that enzyme. The cell also controls enzymatic activities by confining sets of enzymes to particular subcellular compartments, enclosed by distinct membranes. The rate of protein destruction by targeted proteolysis represents yet another important regulatory mechanism. But the most rapid and general process that adjusts reaction rates operates through a direct, reversible change in the activity of an enzyme in response to specific molecules that it encounters.


So the cell controls its proteins by controlling how many it creates and destroys, and by confining them to certain compartments. But most directly it controls them directly, as one controls an automobile with the accelerator and brake.

Glycolysis and the citric acid cycle

A great example of all this is the nearly universal glycolysis pathway and citric acid cycle which team up to process food intake. In the glycolysis pathway about a dozen protein enzymes break down the six-carbon sugar known as glucose into two three-carbon molecules. Like a factory production line, each enzyme catalyzes a specific reaction, using the product of the upstream enzyme, and passing the result to the downstream enzyme. If just one of the enzymes is not present or otherwise not functioning then the entire process doesn’t work.

In addition to breaking down glucose, glycolysis also produces energy-carrying molecules called ATP. These are in constant demand in the cell as they are used wherever energy is needed. Like most pathways, glycolysis is interconnected with other pathways within the cell. The molecular products of glycolysis are used elsewhere and so the rate at which the glycolysis pathway proceeds is important. Too fast and its products won’t be useful, too slow and other pathways have to slow down.

Glycolysis is regulated in a number of ways. The first enzyme in the glycolysis pathway is regulated by its own product. This enzyme alters glucose to form an intermediate product, but if the rest of the pathway is not keeping up then the intermediate product will build up, and this will cause the enzyme to shut down temporarily. The enzyme is designed to be controlled by the presence of its product.

Two other enzymes in the pathway have even more sophisticated regulation. They are sensitive to a number of different molecules which either increase or decrease the enzyme activity. For example, these enzymes are partly controlled by the energy level of the cell. This makes sense since glycolysis helps supply energy to the cell. A good indicator of the cell’s energy level is the relative concentrations of ATP and spent ATP. High levels of ATP indicate a strong energy supply. Hence the enzyme activity is inhibited (and therefore the glycolysis pathway is slowed) when ATP is abundant. But high levels of spent ATP counteract this effect.

How do these molecules control enzyme activity? The molecules are tiny compared to the big enzymes they control. Just as a small key is used to start up and turn off a big truck, so too these small molecules have big effects on their target enzyme. And just as the truck has an ignition lock that can be turned only by the right key, so too the enzyme has several docking sites that are just right for a particular small molecule, such as ATP.

Not only does ATP fit just right into its docking site, but it perturbs the enzyme structure in just the right way so as to diminish the enzyme activity. There is another docking site that only a spent ATP will fit into. And if this occurs then the enzyme structure is again perturbed just right so as to encourage activity and reverse the ATP docking effect.

Glycolysis and the rest of the cell

Glycolysis and the citric acid cycle do not merely create energy for the cell. Just as an oil refinery also produces a range of petroleum products, glycolysis and the citric acid cycle, in addition to producing energy, spin off a series of essential biochemical components needed by the cell. This figure illustrates how these pathways produce nucleotides, lipids, amino acids, cholesterol and other molecules.


In fact glycolysis and the citric acid cycle exist within a complex web of chemical pathways within the cell. These many pathways interaction with each other in many ways, as shown in this wire chart (glycolysis and the citric acid cycle are shown in red).



Sometimes a three dimensional view, that can be rotated, helps to understand the interactions between these many pathways.


This design is complex at many levels. At the molecular level, there is the precise control of the protein enzymes. At the pathway level, there is the interaction between the enzymes. And at the cellular level there is interactions between the different pathways. And all of this has nothing in common with evolution’s na├»ve, religiously-driven, dogma that biology must be one big fluke. As one evolutionist admitted (one of the textbook authors):


We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naive as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second-order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB—and likewise for the many other molecules that interact with each other inside a cell. This seemed reasonable because, as we had learned from studying physical chemistry, motions at the scale of molecules are incredibly rapid. … But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Proteins make up most of the dry mass of a cell. But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. […]

Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like the machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts. Within each protein assembly, intermolecular collisions are not only restricted to a small set of possibilities, but reaction C depends on reaction B, which in turn depends on reaction A—just as it would in a machine of our common experience. […]

We have also come to realize that protein assemblies can be enormously complex. … As the example of the spliceosome should make clear, the cartoons thus far used to depict protein machines vastly underestimate the sophistication of many of these remarkable devices. [Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell 92 (1998): 291-294.]


But the dogma remains. Evolutionists insist that evolution must be a fact and they use dozens of religious arguments to make their case. In the next moment they turn around and insist it is all about science. The result is pathetic science, such as the journal paper that tried to explain the citric acid cycle as “evolutionary opportunism.” Religion drives science, and it matters.

33 comments:

  1. Since you claim to have already falsified evolution, what's the point in posting more of this anti-science slop?

    When will you be submitting your evolution falsification paper to any mainstream science journals? Seems to me if you had any faith in your claim you'd be publishing this far and wide.

    If however you knew it was just empty bluster and hot air...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thorton said...
    Since you claim to have already falsified evolution, what's the point in posting more of this anti-science slop?

    When will you be submitting your evolution falsification paper to any mainstream science journals? Seems to me if you had any faith in your claim you'd be publishing this far and wide.

    If however you knew it was just empty bluster and hot air...

    ===========================

    Has CH ever published his ideas to a mainstream science journal?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Continued...

    Christian fundamentalism drives the ID/Creationist brigade and it matters!

    ReplyDelete
  4. maponos said...

    Has CH ever published his ideas to a mainstream science journal?


    Are you kidding? CH knows that if he ever submitted this ridiculous claptrap to a real scientific journal he'd be laughed right out of the building, possibly out of the state.

    No, CH is happy to chum the waters for the handful of IDC faithful who still flock here like sheep. Personally I come here for the entertainment value only. The anti-science drivel that CH posts is bad enough to be funny - Walt Brown caliber stuff - but some of the responses from the IDC sycophants are pure comedy gold. I figure about one FSTDT worthy quote a week.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Control and Regulation

    RNA Polymerase

    Sequential Function Chart (SFC) is a type of flowchart with special rules normally used in programming of automated systems controlled by PLCs for example. Chart describes the sequential behaviour of a process and being visual tool allows immediate overview of the general process flow. Complex interrelated system becomes easy to understand when we see actual operational structure, flow, loops...

    Chart represents logical, orderly and repetitive relationship between process elements in this case chemical units : enzymes made of subunits, nucleotides with attached phosphates, one strand of DNA as a template.

    Orderly appearance of a chart is somewhat deceiving. Multiple bonds must be established and broken many times per second so motions can be "ratchety" and halting depending on concentration of NTP and number of bond errors.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thorny lies again:
    "Personally I come here for the entertainment value only."

    ROTFL again. You yourself are great entertainment thorny, you should start a comedy hour based on your pseudo-science and useless mis-education.
    Or maybe on why you really waste so much time here driveling all over with your toxic buffoonery.

    - like maponos - whoever that is - since the little wimp is too much of a coward to reveal his real name.

    "anti-science drivel"?

    Oh! aren't we up on the absolute oldest possible codswallop to say against ID!

    Do you have ANYTHING at all original?
    Obviously not.

    You have to borrow even your insults from your slightly smarter cohorts in the Darwinian Fundamentalist Club.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "In the last ten years, at least 20 different natural information codes were discovered in life, each operating to arbitrary conventions (not determined by law or physicality). Examples include protein address codes [Ber08B], acetylation codes [Kni06], RNA codes [Fai07], metabolic codes [Bru07], cytoskeleton codes [Gim08], histone codes [Jen01], and alternative splicing codes"

    So, what does the word code imply?
    Explain how these codes arose naturally.
    Explain how prescribed information can arise without intelligence.

    No Darwinian can and they all know it.

    Thus the Darwinists position is one held by faith alone! An unfounded "leap in the dark" faith in the extrapolation of micro-evo into macro. An extrapolation indefensible given the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gary said...

    - like maponos - whoever that is - since the little wimp is too much of a coward to reveal his real name.

    ========================

    My real name is Llewelyn,too wimpy eh? Little retard!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gary the yappy little puppy said...

    T: "Personally I come here for the entertainment value only."

    - like maponos - whoever that is - since the little wimp is too much of a coward to reveal his real name.


    LOL! See little puppy, that's exactly what I mean. You whining at someone for using a single name handle while you yourself use an untraceable single name.

    That's why you Fundies are so funny!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Gary said...

    "In the last ten years, at least 20 different natural information codes were discovered in life, each operating to arbitrary conventions (not determined by law or physicality). Examples include protein address codes [Ber08B], acetylation codes [Kni06], RNA codes [Fai07], metabolic codes [Bru07], cytoskeleton codes [Gim08], histone codes [Jen01], and alternative splicing codes"

    So, what does the word code imply?
    Explain how these codes arose naturally.
    Explain how prescribed information can arise without intelligence.

    No Darwinian can and they all know it.


    Given that those are completely unsubstantiated BS claims made in a popular press book by a known ID advocate and are not supported by anything in the primary scientific literature, I'd say there's no need for science to address them.

    Maybe you should learn how real science actually advances before yapping your fool puppy head off. Here's a hint - it isn't by just making fantasized claims in self-published articles.

    ReplyDelete
  11. maponos said...

    My real name is Llewelyn,too wimpy eh? Little retard!

    Big retard! nya nya! Sheesh.
    What next, you gonna stick your tongue out at me!?! LOL

    So much fun drawing you losers out and making you whine like kindergarten kids before the whole world.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thorton said...

    Given that those are completely unsubstantiated BS claims made in a popular press book by a known ID advocate and are not supported by anything ...

    FAIL
    Aren't you the bright and informed one!

    If you at least had even just a slight clue on biosemiotics or bioinformatics or even the meaning of the questions I posed. But no, not you.

    So Johnson is a well known ID guy. And?
    He has 2 PhD.s and used to believe exactly like you. He learned, by science, why your lame brained theory can't work and accepted the truth.
    You're too terrified to even question your metaphysics-based Darwinian fundamentalism.

    Well Darwinists are notorious for being lost when logic is involved anyway.

    "Maybe you should learn how real science actually advances"
    FAIL again.

    Seeing as Darwinism has done precisely nothing for the advance of science but on the contrary made vehement efforts to stifle it, this codswallop of yours deserves deep rebuke.

    "before yapping your fool puppy head off."

    ROTFLMHO -I just love irking you thorty, and menopos, or whatever his real name is!

    "Here's a hint - it isn't by just making fantasized claims in self-published articles."

    So now self-published articles are worthless huh? Let's see, oh yes, "On the Origin of Species" ... and um ... gee written any yourself? Doh!

    Little man, you have all the rebuttal ability of a retarded worm.

    I supposed you'll tell us that this too is
    fantasized claims : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2673451

    Or, that renown geneticist John Sanford doesn't understand genetics.
    Um gee, Sanford speaks much of multiple codes, poly-functional and poly-constrained sequences.

    Of course, he's now a full fledged creationist, not merely an IDist -due to his own research btw, led him to view the Primary Axiom as wrong.

    Now go ahead suckers, belittle Sanford, Johnson or Sternberg or Berlinksi or anyone one of the others with intellects far superior to your own shoe-sized IQ's.

    How's this : http://www.springerlink.com/content/n1776u6753264152/
    Oh, I see. Shapiro doesn't know what he's talking about either on multiple codes huh?

    Only you do, n'est-ce pas Thorty?!You and maponose.

    None of you have the brains to realize that saying "we don't yet know how this feature can arise by undirected natural processes, but we will someday" is not a scientific statement. It is faith based foolishness. It is in fact, "Darwinism or naturalism of the gaps", religious dogma.

    Too late for that anyway.
    We already know there is no such thing as coded, algorithmic information arising by natural processes. It requires intelligence by very definition. (This is not hard thorty & mapy)

    And that alone, all by itself, destroys Darwinian idiocy.
    Too bad that no Darwhiners are capable of accepting that singular fact.

    Thus as CH constantly attempts to get through your thick skulls: religion is the real reason why Darwin's inane idea is still kicking even though dying with each new discovery.

    You lose. Read this and weep: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf

    David L Abel (& Jack T Trevors) have demolished Darwinian theory, over & over again.

    Unfortunately Darwinists are such losers they can't accept the pain of seeing their inane world-view crashing and burning with their asinine pseudo-science.

    Prepare to be the mockery of the future world when Darwinian pseudoscience crashes with flat-earth.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gary the yappy little puppy said...

    So Johnson is a well known ID guy. And?
    He has 2 PhD.s and used to believe exactly like you.

    yap! yap! yap! yap! yap! *piddle*


    Psst...here's a clue little puppy: It doesn't matter if he or Sanford or Axe has 200 PhDs. All that matters is the quality of their work. And right now, the quality of their ID supportive work is zero point nil.

    You IDiots can self-publish all the "We're right because we say we're right!!!" unsupported nonsensical garbage you want, and the real scientific community will laugh and ignore you.

    Until you guys get the courage to put your ideas through critical peer review like the rest of science does you'll be nothing be a religiously-driven clown sideshow. Just like now.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Energy balance and operational loops ( RNAPoly)

    NTP is a building block for RNA and a tiny energy pack. Nucleotide together with one phosphate is incorporated into RNA chain while other part of the NTP molecule is used as energy for the enzyme. Energy requirement is balanced so that there is just enough energy to make proper bond and condense subunit for translocation if nucleotide chemically "fits". If there is no bond established sub units recognize it and energy is used for reverse stroke and release of "unfit" nucleotide. After release, enzyme becomes available for next NTP.

    Cell uses RNA Polymerase for assembly of various RNA molecules, one example mRNA during transcription. Above diagram (chart) is very simplified for clarity and two loops are easily visible: normal mRNA assembly on the left and error correction loop on the right side of the chart. Diagram is based on power stroke model requiring one NTP binding site per RNAP. Another model, a more interesting one is called brownian ratchet and requires two NTP binding sites per RNAP.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gary:

    We already know there is no such thing as coded, algorithmic information arising by natural processes. It requires intelligence by very definition. (This is not hard thorty & mapy)

    And that alone, all by itself, destroys Darwinian idiocy.


    Quite possibly the dumbest "argument" for ID I have ever seen. And believe you me, I have seen many very very dumb ones. But then, what else to expect from quite possibly the dumbest commenter on this blog? Gary, do you even understand what algorithmic information is?

    By the way, what ever happened to your "proof" by statistical mechanics that evolution is impossible?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Quite possibly the dumbest "argument" for ID I have ever seen. And believe you me, I have seen many very very dumb ones. But then, what else to expect from quite possibly the dumbest commenter on this blog?"

      Um, that's not an argument.

      Delete
  16. troy:

    Quite certainly the dumbest argument against facts I've ever seen.
    And believe me, I have seen them all.

    "Dumbest commenter here." ?
    Look in the mirror, you're about to be humiliated.

    Do I understand algorithmic information?
    Duh gee. Probably better than you ever will.

    Guess you're just too damned lazy or too willfully stupid to look at my profile huh?

    Once again,
    "In physics, no empirical evidence exists, not even an anecdotal account, of Chaos, Catastrophe, maximum Complexity, order or pattern ever having produced sophisticated algorithmic function or cybernetic organization of any kind. A pulsar signal has abundant order and pattern. But it doesn’t DO anything useful. It contains no meaningful or functional message. It knows nothing of decision nodes or choice contingency. In biology, no rational or empirical justification exists for attributing linear, digital, encrypted, genetic recipes to stochastic ensembles OR to physical laws in any amount of time. Yet thousands of peer-reviewed papers exist in the literature on “self-organization.” How can denial of self-organization possibly be correct? The answer is that all of these papers are universally misdefining what is being observed. Self-ordering phenomena are being observed, not self-organization. But self-ordering phenomena do not measure up to the task of genetic programming."
    ...
    "Artificial life investigators and most applied biologists accepted this reality early on. Steering is required to achieve sophisticated function of any kind. Much of the life-origin research community, however, continues to “live in denial” of this fact."
    ...
    "Genomic instructions are a form of what Abel (Abel, 2002, Abel and Trevors, 2005) calls prescriptive information. Such a clarifying descriptor of information is necessary to distinguish mere Shannon combinatorial uncertainty and Kolmogorov complexity from functional algorithmic strings. Algorithms steer events and behaviors towards predictable usefulness. Prescriptive information utilizes a sign system to either instruct or direct compute utility."
    - from Biosemiotic Research Trends

    Information has laws.
    Prescribed, functional or function creating information has laws that prohibit its existence without intelligence.

    Coded information implies convention.
    Convention, especially syntactic & semantic, does not exist without intelligence.
    There is no such thing as coded information without intelligent origins.
    DNA is a "book of instructions".

    Instructions are never written w/o intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information
    David L Abel1 and Jack T Trevors
    ---
    Address: 1Director, The Gene Emergence Project, The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc., 113 Hedgewood Dr., Greenbelt, MD 20770-1610 USA and
    2Professor, Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Rm 3220 Bovey Building, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
    ---

    Prescriptive sequences are called "instructions" and "programs." They are not merely complex sequences. They are algorithmically complex sequences. They are cybernetic. Random sequences are maximally complex. But they don't do anything useful. Algorithmic instruction is invariably the key to any kind of sophisticated organization such as we observe in any cell. No method yet exists to quantify "prescriptive information" (cybernetic "instructions").

    Nucleic acid prescription of function cannot be explained by "order out of chaos" or by "order on the edge of chaos" [163]. Physical phase changes cannot write algorithms. Biopolymeric matrices of high information retention are among the most complex entities known to science. They do not and can not arise from low-informational selfordering phenomena. Instead of order from chaos, the genetic code was algorithmically optimized to deliver highly informational, aperiodic, specified complexity [164]. Specified complexity usually lies closer to the noncompressible unordered end of the complexity spectrum than to the highly ordered end (Fig. 4). Patterning usually results from the reuse of programming modules or words. But this is only secondary to choice contingency utilizing better efficiency. Order itself is not the key to prescriptive information."

    "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." F. Hoyle, The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics

    "The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence" - Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1984, p. 148.

    I would actually try to understand the above before spewing forth your usual ill reasoned drivel based on your own deep ignorance on functional information in the genome.

    Q: Where did it come from in the 1st place?
    Darwinists A: "we don't have a clue but there is no god so evolution did it".

    ReplyDelete
  19. Gary the yappy little puppy said...

    "Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information
    David L Abel1 and Jack T Trevors
    ---
    Address: 1Director, The Gene Emergence Project, The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc., 113 Hedgewood Dr., Greenbelt, MD 20770-1610 USA


    LOL! Here's a picture of the "Origin-of-Life Foundation", 113 Hedgewood Dr., Greenbelt, MD.

    OOL Foundation

    Looks like a world class research facility to me. Maybe they keep the printing press in the garage, the one they use to self-publish all the crap that would be laughed out of any legitimate science journal office IF they ever grew the bollox to submit it.

    Do you think that Ford Taurus is the company limo all ready to take the IDiots to get their Nobel Prize?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You aren't making arguments at all. You don't seem to have basic integrity. I won't read what you write anymore until I become aware that you have stopped your childish nonsense.

      Delete
  20. Another photo of the Origin-of-Life Foundation

    OOL Foundation

    Whatta ya think Gary? How does this place compare with Kent Hovind's "Patriot University" campus?

    Patriot University

    ReplyDelete
  21. OOL place looks like LOL place.

    Is this real or a joke?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Eugen,

    Yes, it is. Look for that address on Google Earth. You'll see the very same house. It's easily recognisable.

    ReplyDelete
  23. But Thorton's pic of Patriot University is a joke.

    These are real:

    http://www.patriotuniversity.com/Resources/PatriotUniversity2.jpg

    http://www.durangobill.com/JGpics/PatriotUnivName.jpg

    Not really any better xD. Big enough for a gas station, far too small for a motel. At least they have wheelchair access.

    Read their own webpage:

    http://www.patriotuniversity.com/PriceOfTruth.htm

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sadly, it's real. IDCers love to invent big fancy sounding titles to make their exploits seem more 'sciency', but just look what's behind the curtain.

    One on the more funny ones happened a few years ago when Bill "the Fig Newton of Information Theory" Dembski wrote glowingly about his new International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, headquartered at 66 Witherspoon Street, Suite 1800, Princeton, NJ.

    Turns out the new Intelligent Design 'headquarters' was a P.O. box (!)

    You can read about it (with pictures) here.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Tnx guys, it seems real. That's funny.


    Re. Trevors and Abel, they are from University of Guelph. When you want to study biology in Ontario you go there. Guelph is actually a nice city close to me.

    BTW feel free to refute their null hypothesis.

    “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”

    ReplyDelete
  26. Eugen said...

    Tnx guys, it seems real. That's funny.


    Our pleasure. IDCers are comedy gold!


    BTW feel free to refute their null hypothesis.

    “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”


    Define "non trivial"
    Define "algorithmic/computational utility"
    Define "chance"
    Define "necessity"

    Then show how any of those are relevant to biological life.

    ReplyDelete
  27. See my comment above, it's #5. It involves some of the terms you want to define.

    Those are mind-boggling events to me.

    I'm studying ribosome now. I don't consider it biology rather robotics. I can deal with robotics(my field) but hate biology. Of biology I know only the birds and the bees :)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Eugen said...

    See my comment above, it's #5. It involves some of the terms you want to define.

    Those are mind-boggling events to me


    I read you post 5 back when you made it - your posts are usually entertaining. I agree it's mind boggling. But it doesn't involve any of the terms Abel used, especially not "algorithmic/computational utility"

    I don't expect you to defend any of Abel's work, but he's notorious for making up his own nonstandard definitions and/or buzzwords. Keeping things vague gives him lots of wiggle room, a tactic adopted by all the leading ID pushers from Dembski on down. That's why pinning down the definitions are so important.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thorton

    I read several papers by Abel , some are very interesting some repetitive,repetitive, repetitive :)

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. So thorton, the 1st of his class - in dimwit logic - PROVES Dr.'s Abel and Trevor wrong by belittling their OOL work spot?

    where did they find this guy?

    'nuff said

    ReplyDelete