[Lolic]

Hemoglobin - a scientific look into the improbability of the random formation

Our DNA/RNA coding system arranges amino acids into specific sequences to form each required protein. Only a specific sequence of amino acids will produce the required result.

Hemoglobin is responsible for both the red color of our blood and for the oxygen chemistry based on our breathing. There is one specific sequence of the amino acids that is hemoglobin. Hemoglobinopathy occurs if even one amino acid is replaced; it is usually lethal. (Sickle cell anemia is one example.)

Considering alternate linear arrangements of these amino acids indicates that there are about 10 to the 650th power permutations possible, but only one of them is hemoglobin.
(The actual number is 7.4 x 10 to the 654th. Some of the amino acid positions may be "neutral," like spaces, which are less significant. in which case the specificity would reduce to 7.9 x 10 to the 503rd.)

A reasonable finite approximation for infinity. The likelihood of this specific sequence occurring by chance is clearly absurd. (In speculating about obtaining this precise sequence by 10 to the 500th+ random trials, remember that there have been only about 10 to the 17th seconds in the generally accepted age of the universe.)

Hemoglobin shows very good evidence of being skillfully designed.

[Buffy]

These odds only apply if there are no other factors that would influence this outcome. In probablilty theory, prior probabilities can affect outcomes to the point that "astronomical probablities" are reduced to absolute certainty. Hemoglobin may cause problems for the host organism if any particular element of them changes, but if hemoglobin did have that difference, the host organism never would have been around to utilize it in the first place.

Cheers,
Buffy

[Lolic]

Another sign of Intelligent Design is the bacterial flagellum. There are 40 parts to this molecular machine, only 10 of which are similar to other existing structures. This leaves 30 pieces comprised of proteins that need to be coded for in the DNA, produced, transported in the proper sequence, and assembled in the proper order. Without one of the 40 parts, the apparatus is without value. Macro evolutionary theory cannot account for this, but this fits the definition of Intelligent Design.

This evidence takes a theory (macro evolution),
test it (can macro evolution account for this item),
finds it cannot account for the flagellum,
and finds the flagellum does provide evidence for Intelligent Design.

If the above information does not make sense, than some study into "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" will probably help a great deal.

[Buffy]

Its really considered bad form to post the same item to multiple threads. It makes you look like you're trying to get people to avoid reading the responses to your posts. My response to this is here: http://www.hypography.com/sciencefor...2965#post22965 and I agree with Maddogs post in that thread as well.

Cheers,
Buffy

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by Lolic

Hemoglobin - a scientific look into the improbability of the random formation

And who said hemoglobing formed de novo randomly? Not scientists.

And you might want to consider this...

"There is also another protein, called myoglobin, that is very similar to hemoglobin except that is has only one protein chain, not four, and therefore binds only one oxygen. The question is, if we assume that we already have an oxygen-binding protein like myoglobin, can we infer intelligent design from the function of hemoglobin? The case for design is weak. The starting point, myoglobin, already can bind oxygen. The behavior of hemoglobin can be achieved by a rather simple modification of the behavior of myoglobin, and the individual proteins of hemoglobin strongly resemble those of myoglobin. So although hemoglobin can be thought of as a system of interacting parts, the interaction does nothing much that is clearly beyond the individual components of the system. Given the starting point of myoglobin, I would say that hemoglobin shows the same evidence for design as does the man in the moon: intriguing, but far from convincing." (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, Free Press, 1996, p207)

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by Lolic

Another sign of Intelligent Design is the bacterial flagellum. There are 40 parts to this molecular machine, only 10 of which are similar to other existing structures. ...

If the above information does not make sense, than some study into "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" will probably help a great deal.

Been there...done that :-)

Now, exactly what 30 parts do you claim are found only in the bacterial flagellum and are not similar to other structures?

[Lolic]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Its really considered bad form to post the same item to multiple threads.

Hi Buffy,
To much heat on the other thread for not staying on the topic of evolution and not only looking at the scientific aspects of it. So began a thread for this. To begin I posted two items that I believe are relevant and a reasonable starting point. Sorry if that doesn't suit you.

Guess I would have felt rather foolish starting out with a title and a blank post!

[Buffy]

Fair enough, but you should state your intention, because many will jump to the conclusion I posed....

Cheers,
Buffy

[Lolic]

Originally Posted by Buffy

but if hemoglobin did have that difference, the host organism never would have been around to utilize it in the first place.

But we are around, and we have very complex biological systems that integrate quite well.

If you went to a lab, design house, software house, etc and ask them to design and build you a "human" they would laugh you out of the office.

systems
complex systems
complex systems with feedback
complex sytems with feedback and reproduction capability

We've got it all.

you take those specifications (for a human) to a chemist and they say it's designed,

you take them to a software house and they say designed,

you take them to the biology department and they say oh that evolved over billions and billions of years! From the Goo to You via the Zoo.

If you want to believe that, you have to free will to do just that. You have a different world view than I do. Because of that, you see incredible odds after incredible odds and still believe it could all happen by chance. To me, that is ignoring the evidence.

I believe there is ample evidence to demonstrate design. I use to believe otherwise but I was open to what I looked into and followed the evidence.

It only takes a reasonable faith to believe in intelligent design based on the evidence.
I don't have enough faith to believe that evolution is responsible for the diversity and complexity we see in life.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Lolic

But we are around, and we have very complex biological systems that integrate quite well.

Yep, that's the point. You keep stating the odds are astronomical when in fact the confluence of the various factors makes it quite likely that things work together. They could work differently, but they'd be coordinated in that configuration. By arguing probablility in isolation, you draw misleading conclusions, based on well accepted principles of statistics and probability.

Originally Posted by Lolic

If you went to a lab, design house, software house, etc and ask them to design and build you a "human" they would laugh you out of the office.

Check out the Star Trek episode "The Changeling:"

"This is one of your units creator? It is inefficient and fragile and lacks basic protection and mechanisms for self-repair."
"It serves me as is, you will repair it"

"That *unit* is a woman."
"A mass of conflicting impulses."

If it was designed, it sure wasn't designed very well!

Originally Posted by Lolic

If you want to believe that, you have to free will to do just that. You have a different world view than I do. Because of that, you see incredible odds after incredible odds and still believe it could all happen by chance. To me, that is ignoring the evidence.

This gets at the crux of why ID is not taken very seriously, its only basis is to try to say that because we don't understand how something happens, it must have been designed. Go back a couple hundred years, and birds flying had to have something to do with angels lifting them. Or for primitive societies, every earthquake and tornado is God shaking the ground. To justify something simply by saying "we don't know *now* how this could possibly be" does not in and of itself provide any sort of evidence that an outside force (or pre-existing intelligence as James Putnam likes to talk about here), caused anything. Violating the basic principles of well understood disciplines like statistics does not make claims of "astronomical probabilities" so.

Originally Posted by Lolic

It only takes a reasonable faith to believe in intelligent design based on the evidence.

I agree with that! It definitely takes "faith" and not logic!

Cheers,
Buffy