NERD AGONY: Sal's Discovery Institute Presentation on Protein Improbabilities and other topics
21[WARNING THIS IS REALLY NERDY]
Sal will have a "dress rehearsal" for his presentation for the Discovery Institute Engineering Research Group (ERG) headed by Brian Miller, Steve Laufman, Emily Reeves. The actual presentation will be for a private group the next day, but the dress rehearsal in this video will actually have more goodies. : - )
Sal will cover publications he's written and is working on, including a criticism of a recent PNAS paper by Bartonek on frameshift mutations as being an effective evolutionary strategy.
The topic is: Protein Probabilities: Geometric Connectivity, NLS, PTM, Translocation, LLN
Multimeric proteins, protein complexes, and protein interactions often require geometric precision to facilitate connection of subunits. Though the phrase "lock and key" is archaic and does not reflect the actual pliability of proteins, it does convey metaphorically the molecular level precision in creating geometrically functional complexes.
Additionally, there are polyconstrained embedded codes such as nuclear localization signals (NLS), post-translational modification (PTM) regions, Translocon signal sequence codes. Proteins like Topoisomerase 2, K-channel are examined.
Finally, there are a few cases where the primary structure evidence violations of the Law of Large Number (LLN) such as Collagen and Zinc Finger Proteins.
He'll argue that improbability arguments can be made WITHOUT reference to teleology, function, and purpose. Teleology can be a conclusion, but should NOT be a premise when calculating improbability. One has to be careful not to import metaphysical concepts into the definitions of probability. "Function" is too teleological, geometric improbability is demonstrable and free of metaphysical complications.
However, can requirements specifications be stated without reference to teleology for chemical reactions and shape, positioning, and orientation of molecules? Maybe, but with care!
He'll discuss the relevance of the engineering conception of biology and criticisms of the evolutionary definition of fitness that was in his recent publication (Basener, Cordova, Sanford, Hossjer) in a Springer/Nature reference work that is now in University Libraries.
He'll argue that the protein families look more like an Orchard than a Universal tree, and although not exactly like the Creationist view of orchards for organisms, the orchard is clearly indicated in proteins!
He recommends de-emphasizing the phrase "Irreducible Complexity" in favor of the actual quote by Darwin:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
ID is NOT science, but predicting and testing evolutionary improbability IS science. Sal recommends avoiding things in one's presentation of ID that lead to rhetorical wrangling and distractions, i.e "ID is Science", "Irreducible Complexity", "Information Theory", etc. Focus on complexity and improbability is better.
He points out the rhetorical trap of evolutionists using statistics of one catalyst from a random peptide as being somehow applicable to a protein complex/catalyst like ATP synthase, as well as their use of phylogenetic methods as a proof of evolvability. This is known as the logical fallacy of "hasty generalization".
A passing description of the ERG is here:
https://www.discovery.org/e/cels/
The thumbnail is from the entry in NobelPrize.org for the 1999 Nobel Prize to Gunter Blobel for the discovery of the protein translocation process.
#Christianity #IntelligentDesign #Evolution #Evolutionism #Creationism #CreationScience #Engineering #Fitness #TopoIsomerase #ZincFinger #IonChannel
Thank you to all the patrons of this channel. You can become a patron by donating through PayPal:
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=7SXFF8FM2YBSE