Human Devolution

[Thumpalumpacus]

Morris couldn't mount a formidable argument over a cherry pop-tart. His arguments regarding flood geology are laughably wrong and obviously based on a priori assumptions.

[Whateverist]

I completely agree with everything in this post of yours Rob but I'd like to focus on this bit in particular.

Read this again, Pubes.  Think about it.  No matter how much doubt you cast on the theory of evolution I'm sure it pales in comparison to the challenges brought by sincere scientists every day.  If you or they ever succeed in discrediting it altogether you will not have moved any right thinking person one step closer to design/creation nonsense.  Not having a settled theory a phenomenon is never justification for invoking magic.

I'll triple down on this.  
Though I disagree(maybe, maybe not) a little with the "challenges brought by sincere scientists every day" part.
I think science does a good job explaining things that used to be explained with mysticism.  Which can help break the grip theism has on some people.  I don't think scientists have much to say at all about the actual existence of god.  It's non-falsifiable, so it's not really a scientific pursuit.

Yeah I just meant scientists themselves challenge each other's work all the time.  My wife attends neuroscience conferences on occasion as an interested lay person with a rare condition.  She always remarks how forcefully they challenge each other's posters of which there are hundreds.

[Cyberman]

Quoting from the article you linked and emphasis mine;

"The modular evolution theory for the origin of ATP synthase suggests that two subunits with independent function, a DNA helicase with ATPase activity and a H+
 motor, were able to bind, and the rotation of the motor drove the ATPase activity of the helicase in reverse.[6][10] This complex then evolved greater efficiency and eventually developed into today's intricate ATP synthases. Alternatively, the DNA helicase/H+ motor complex may have had H+
 pump activity with the ATPase activity of the helicase driving the H+
 motor in reverse.[6] This may have evolved to carry out the reverse reaction and act as an ATP synthase."

 Remember ATP is the energy currency of the cell, before ATP Synthase formed there would be no energy currency for ANY PROCESS IN THE CELL, INCLUDING THE FORMATION OF ATP SYTHASE, ITS A VICIOUS CIRCLE MATHILDA.

It is obvious the article has a lot of "mays" and speculation, how did the two seperate components find each other and bind so neatly and became so wonderfully efficient? The article is pure speculation leaving many unanswered questions.

 How did the two components form and why? DNA helicase has a specific function, why did it find just the perfect H+ motor and "decide" "This will make a great component to make ATP synthase"? And THEN it went back to the DNA molecule and "said" "Right Ive deiscovered ATP SYnthase now CODE FOR IT so we can keep making it?" How did it become encoded after it miraculously formed??

If the above Materialistic Theory is correct, why doesn't DNA helicase randomly bind to other components in the cell, making it perform random functions, some of which would surely be deleterious to the cell, thereby stopping evolution in its tracks and causing the extinction of every living cell on earth? In other words why did it bind to a H+ motor, and Nothing else, and make a Perfect enzyme and then perfectly encoded it into the DNA??

Guess what, chuckles? See those little blue numbers in the wiki text? Know what they mean? They're citations, and they link directly to the relevant scientific papers where you can learn more about the background to this stuff. Or do you think that scientists just make up what the hell they like and post it on wikipedia?

[Whateverist]

How could it possibly gradually evolve??

And there we have it. Argument from ignorance/personal incredulity.

But he left out: "..therefore magic!"

[brewer]

ATP cam be made without ATP synthase, google fermentation. I'm tired of doing basic work that you should be doing but won't so that you can continue your tired arguments.

ATP can also be made from ethanol metabolism, no ATPase. Look it up. 

Microsporidia, a life form, parasitically obtains it's ATP, no synthesis. 

What, not on your ID sites?

[AceBoogie]

Ace.

What! You thought they just cherry picked the bible only!
No no no!, you see they have devolved too!   Lol!

Fixed.

[Pulse]

Quoting from the article you linked and emphasis mine;

"The modular evolution theory for the origin of ATP synthase suggests that two subunits with independent function, a DNA helicase with ATPase activity and a H+
 motor, were able to bind, and the rotation of the motor drove the ATPase activity of the helicase in reverse.[6][10] This complex then evolved greater efficiency and eventually developed into today's intricate ATP synthases. Alternatively, the DNA helicase/H+ motor complex may have had H+
 pump activity with the ATPase activity of the helicase driving the H+
 motor in reverse.[6] This may have evolved to carry out the reverse reaction and act as an ATP synthase."

 Remember ATP is the energy currency of the cell, before ATP Synthase formed there would be no energy currency for ANY PROCESS IN THE CELL, INCLUDING THE FORMATION OF ATP SYTHASE, ITS A VICIOUS CIRCLE MATHILDA.

It is obvious the article has a lot of "mays" and speculation, how did the two seperate components find each other and bind so neatly and became so wonderfully efficient? The article is pure speculation leaving many unanswered questions.

 How did the two components form and why? DNA helicase has a specific function, why did it find just the perfect H+ motor and "decide" "This will make a great component to make ATP synthase"? And THEN it went back to the DNA molecule and "said" "Right Ive deiscovered ATP SYnthase now CODE FOR IT so we can keep making it?" How did it become encoded after it miraculously formed??

If the above Materialistic Theory is correct, why doesn't DNA helicase randomly bind to other components in the cell, making it perform random functions, some of which would surely be deleterious to the cell, thereby stopping evolution in its tracks and causing the extinction of every living cell on earth? In other words why did it bind to a H+ motor, and Nothing else, and make a Perfect enzyme and then perfectly encoded it into the DNA??

Guess what, chuckles? See those little blue numbers in the wiki text? Know what they mean? They're citations, and they link directly to the relevant scientific papers where you can learn more about the background to this stuff. Or do you think that scientists just make up what the hell they like and post it on wikipedia?

Dear Stimbo, I have a science degree, and trust me, when it comes to origins, its all guess work as you can see from the terminology that these papers use. You have to think for your self Stimbo, Question Everything, don't let the High Priests of Scientism tell you what to believe about the origins of cellular nano machinery, they are guessing despite their use of "big words". Don't be one of the "sheeple", think for yourself. And please do not quote me half way and delete the rest,

I have already cited one paper about the uncertainty of abiogenesis, there's Plenty more!
I'm curious why you deleted half my post in your quote.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Dear Stimbo, I have a science degree, and trust me, when it comes to origins, its all guess work as you can see from the terminology that these papers use.

Maybe you should get a refund on your science degree because they obviously haven't taught you about the scientific method or how science works. Which is why you highlight words like 'theory' or 'may'.

There is no proof. Just repeatable, real-world evidence, falsifiable hypotheses and peer-reviewed reproducible experiments grounded in the scientific literature.

You need to learn what science is and then re-read from proper scientists about ATP Synthase, irreducible complexity and evolution before you start arguing about it.

I have explained on multiple occasions now why irreducible complexity is a flawed concept, because it does not take into account that systems develop over time. You have consistently ignored that point and are repeating yourself.

[robvalue]

I also really appreciate you setting all this misinformation straight, thank you

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Guess what, chuckles? See those little blue numbers in the wiki text? Know what they mean? They're citations, and they link directly to the relevant scientific papers where you can learn more about the background to this stuff. Or do you think that scientists just make up what the hell they like and post it on wikipedia?

A constant puzzle- why do creationists consistently deny science without even attempting to read refutations of their positions? I do this routinely - not that I'm in any wise a creationist, but with other things I'm unsure about. Has my position been refuted? Where have these refutations been published? What are the relevant qualifications of the person doing the refuting?

If my position on nuclear power has been refuted by nuclear engineers publishing in the peer-reviewed journal 'Energy and Environmental Science', I'm likely to sit up and take notice. If my position on nuclear power has been refuted by a self-taught reflexologist in her blog 'Cats N Stuff', not so much.

Boru