Starlight and Time

[dad1]

Does science know what time, specifically time in the distant universe is? If you claim it does, then be prepared to support that claim.

If science does not know that time exists out there in a way we know it here, then one implication is that no distances are knowable to distant stars.

Why? Because distances depend on the uniform existence of time. If time (in this example 4 billion light years from earth) did not exist the same as time near earth, then what might take a billion years (of time as we know it here) for light to travel a certain distance in space might, for all we know, take minutes weeks or seconds of time as it exists out THERE!

So what methods does science have to measure time there? I am not aware of any. Movements observed at a great distance and observed from OUR time and space would not qualify. Such observations would only tell us how much time as seen here it would take if time were the same there.

How this relates to religion is that a six day creation thousands of years ago cannot be questioned using cosmology if it really did not take light that reaches us on earth and area a lot of time to get here.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #199]

Adaption is based on information that is already in the genome. Creating information to make new structures is that is not in the genome would be considered evolution and not adaption.

What do you mean by "not in the genome"? The nuclear genome of humans consists of billions of base pairs organized on 23 chromosome pairs and ordered into genes (or not) carrying out all kinds of functions. If these are rearranged in some way (insertions, deletions, SNPs, etc.) then a new gene or new function may result. But anything that does happen is already "in the genome" because it is basically a giant set of building blocks.

If a new protein is made because of a mutation it still consists of a string of amino acids, just a different ordering and resulting protein structure than one that already existed. It did not come from "outside" the genome. It is like having a range of spices and other ingredients in your kitchen that you could mix up in all kinds of ways to create new recipes, flavors, etc. All of these would come from the same building blocks no matter how you mix them up.

There is no new structures, no new proteins just simply on increase in a protein that is already made by bacteria.

I am lactose tolerant because a single nucleotide at a specific location was changed from a C to a T. Something like 75% of the world's adult population don't have this single nucleotide mutation. But it is not something from "outside the genome" ... just a single nucleotide change at the right location so essentially a small rearrangement that has a significant effect. There are many other examples of genetic changes that aid survival and reproduction in humans (eg. to live in high altitudes). These changes are "new", not just more of something that was already there.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #201]

What do you mean by "not in the genome"? The nuclear genome of humans consists of billions of base pairs organized on 23 chromosome pairs and ordered into genes (or not) carrying out all kinds of functions. If these are rearranged in some way (insertions, deletions, SNPs, etc.) then a new gene or new function may result. But anything that does happen is already "in the genome" because it is basically a giant set of building blocks.

If a new protein is made because of a mutation it still consists of a string of amino acids, just a different ordering and resulting protein structure than one that already existed. It did not come from "outside" the genome. It is like having a range of spices and other ingredients in your kitchen that you could mix up in all kinds of ways to create new recipes, flavors, etc. All of these would come from the same building blocks no matter how you mix them up.

Do you seriously believe that random mutations can produce new proteins? Proteins in the body are three-dimensional structures that have to be able to fold and fit exactly with other structures to be used. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/10/can-n ... ns-evolve/
It is not like spices it is like a giant tinker toy set. Where one large section is pulled off and a different section has to fit exactly in the place where the large section was first pulled off. Every link has to be turned correctly and the length also has to line up also.

I am lactose tolerant because a single nucleotide at a specific location was changed from a C to a T. Something like 75% of the world's adult population don't have this single nucleotide mutation. But it is not something from "outside the genome" ... just a single nucleotide change at the right location so essentially a small rearrangement that has a significant effect. There are many other examples of genetic changes that aid survival and reproduction in humans (eg. to live in high altitudes). These changes are "new", not just more of something that was already there.

I am assuming you mean lactose intolerant. All this means is that your body does not produce enough of the enzyme lactase. None of your examples are producing new proteins or making new structures. So none of these would be considered evolution.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #202]

Do you seriously believe that random mutations can produce new proteins? Proteins in the body are three-dimensional structures that have to be able to fold and fit exactly with other structures to be used. It is not like spices it is like a giant tinker toy set. Where one large section is pulled off and a different section has to fit exactly in the place where the large section was first pulled off. Every link has to be turned correctly and the length also has to line up also.

Proteins are strings of amino acids, so if one amino acid is changed then you can have a different protein. In sickle cell disease (SCD), a T replaces an A at a key location in the HBB gene. This gene encodes a component of hemoglobin, a protein which carries oxygen in red blood cells. This mutation causes hemoglobin molecules to stick together, creating sickle-shaped red blood cells. So yes, a single mutation can alter a protein and cause it not to function properly. If it alters the protein enough then it may not "fit" as you put it, causing all kinds of problems. SCD is just one of many examples.

I am assuming you mean lactose intolerant. All this means is that your body does not produce enough of the enzyme lactase. None of your examples are producing new proteins or making new structures. So none of these would be considered evolution.

No, I meant lactose tolerant because I have no problem digesting the sugar (lactose) in dairy products as an adult. If I was lactose intolerant I would not be able to tolerate dairy products easily.

I'm afraid you went 0 for 2 on this one.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #203]

Proteins are strings of amino acids, so if one amino acid is changed then you can have a different protein. In sickle cell disease (SCD), a T replaces an A at a key location in the HBB gene. This gene encodes a component of hemoglobin, a protein which carries oxygen in red blood cells. This mutation causes hemoglobin molecules to stick together, creating sickle-shaped red blood cells. So yes, a single mutation can alter a protein and cause it not to function properly. If it alters the protein enough then it may not "fit" as you put it, causing all kinds of problems. SCD is just one of many examples.

I am not sure what you are getting at here because this supports my point on the difficulty of making proteins through random mutation. This mutation does not change the type of protein it simply changes its shape. It is the change in shape that makes this a deadly disease. Creating a novel protein by random mutation is really not possible.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #204]

I am not sure what you are getting at here because this supports my point on the difficulty of making proteins through random mutation. This mutation does not change the type of protein it simply changes its shape. It is the change in shape that makes this a deadly disease. Creating a novel protein by random mutation is really not possible.

Again ... a protein is simply a string of amino acids (polypeptide chain):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26830/

If an amino acid is changed then the protein can have a different structure and/or function. There are a huge number of proteins that make up the human proteome ... this paper estimates around 6 million (with a wide range of uncertainty):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4889822/

One paragraph from the above paper is this:

"Following the hypothesis of “one gene = one protein,” there should be at least ~20,000 nonmodified (canonical) human proteins. Taking into account products of alternative splicing (AS), those containing single amino acid polymorphisms (SAPs) arising from nonsynonymous single-nucleotide polymorphisms (nsSNPs), and those that undergo PTMs [4, 5], as many as 100 different proteins can potentially be produced from a single gene. Of the many different terms proposed to describe protein variants [6], here, we chose “protein species” [7] or “proteoforms” [6]."

nsSNPs are SNPs with single amino acid substitution in a protein sequence. This can lead to missense mutation or nonsense mutation. Mutations ... even one base change in a codon ... can alter a protein as it can change the amino acid at a certain location in the chain. This makes it technically a different protein because it has a different amino acid chain.

What do you mean by "type" of protein? If a protein has a different amino acid sequence it is a different protein. What makes a protein a certain "type" and not another type? Creating a novel protein by random mutation is possible ... because a random mutation can change the amino acid sequence in the protein, and multiple random mutations can cause even more changes in the amino acid chain. What's the reason for wanting this not to be possible?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #205]

Again ... a protein is simply a string of amino acids (polypeptide chain):

That has to have a specific shape to be used. Sickle cell anemia is a great example of how a protein has to have the correct shape.

If an amino acid is changed then the protein can have a different structure and/or function. There are a huge number of proteins that make up the human proteome ... this paper estimates around 6 million (with a wide range of uncertainty):

Yes, I know no one is arguing that point. The point is that the change causes serious problems because a protein has to have a specific shape to be used.

What do you mean by "type" of protein? If a protein has a different amino acid sequence it is a different protein. What makes a protein a certain "type" and not another type? Creating a novel protein by random mutation is possible ... because a random mutation can change the amino acid sequence in the protein, and multiple random mutations can cause even more changes in the amino acid chain. What's the reason for wanting this not to be possible?

What? There are subgroups of every protein take for example Tubulin. In humans, there are five subgroups of tubulin: α-Tubulin, β-Tubulin, γ-Tubulin, δ and ε-Tubulin, and ζ-Tubulin. Changing the subgroup does not change the type of protein.

[Jose Fly]

How can evolutionary mechanisms generate proteins? Gosh, I bet no scientists have ever looked into that! Oh...wait...

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.94.8.3811

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/0 ... tio-1.html

Let the hand-waving begin.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #206]

That has to have a specific shape to be used. Sickle cell anemia is a great example of how a protein has to have the correct shape.

And what causes the protein to NOT have the right "shape" ... mutation(s) in the gene that codes for the protein. In post 202 you said this:

"Do you seriously believe that random mutations can produce new proteins?"

If there is a mutation in a gene that codes for a protein then the protein may not function (more than one codon can code for a given amino acid), and may be a "new" protein. What makes you think that a random mutation could not produce a new protein?

The point is that the change causes serious problems because a protein has to have a specific shape to be used.

And again, what makes you think that a mutation could not cause this? Surely you'd agree that a "correct" protein having the correct shape, and one having a different shape because of a mutation, are different (by definition). Are you objecting to calling this different protein a "new" protein?

What? There are subgroups of every protein take for example Tubulin. In humans, there are five subgroups of tubulin: α-Tubulin, β-Tubulin, γ-Tubulin, δ and ε-Tubulin, and ζ-Tubulin. Changing the subgroup does not change the type of protein.

Are these five subgroups all interchangeable? Is "type" the same as a subgroup? My question was on the meaning of the word type when used with proteins. What defines one type of protein from another type?

[EarthScienceguy]

How can evolutionary mechanisms generate proteins? Gosh, I bet no scientists have ever looked into that! Oh...wait...

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.94.8.3811

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/0 ... tio-1.html

Let the hand-waving begin.

I do not see where this was observed in nature. In fact the one paper states "Likely mechanism by which an ancestral trypsinogen gene was transformed into an AFGP gene." This was accomplished in one generation. Wow! that's really lucky.

Do you have any observed changes? This is nothing but make believe.

[Jose Fly]

How can evolutionary mechanisms generate proteins? Gosh, I bet no scientists have ever looked into that! Oh...wait...

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.94.8.3811

https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/0 ... tio-1.html

Let the hand-waving begin.

I do not see where this was observed in nature. In fact the one paper states "Likely mechanism by which an ancestral trypsinogen gene was transformed into an AFGP gene." This was accomplished in one generation. Wow! that's really lucky.

Do you have any observed changes? This is nothing but make believe.

Which step in the antifreeze protein pathway do you believe is impossible?

The corn protein only occurs in a subset of domestic varieties. So if the protein didn't arrive via the pathway in the link, how do you think it came to be?

And do you believe all the proteins in every organism were created by God?