Real Time Web Analytics

Clicky

Proteins Are Unable to Evolve

Added by Holger Bergner on August 1, 2013. · No Comments · Share this Post

Filed under Intelligent Design, Science

Share This Post

Google1DeliciousDiggGoogleStumbleuponRedditTechnoratiYahooBloggerMyspaceRSS

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Illinois researchers developed a new technique that combines optical traps (red) with fluorescence (green) to study the proteins that regulate DNA. | Image by Matthew Comstock

The following scientific articles give evidence to the vast complexity of proteins and their genuine inability to gradually evolve from simple to complex. Proteins are large biological molecules consisting of one or more chains of amino acids. Proteins perform a vast array of functions within living organisms, including catalyzing metabolic reactions, replicating DNA, responding to stimuli, and transporting molecules from one location to another.

By the Institute of Creation Research, Nov. 10, 2012:

Researchers just announced the systematic laboratory induced mutation of successive amino acids over the entire sequence of a simple bacterial protein. The results showed how even the simplest of life’s proteins have irreducibly complex chemical structures, (…) random evolutionary processes that are ascribed to mutations are unable to propel evolution.
DNA holds the coded information that cells use to produce proteins, which are ordered chains of amino acids. Publishing in Nature, researchers successively changed the DNA code of an entire bacterial gene to mutate every amino acid of an 83-amino-acid protein. Please read the full ICR article here

By Steve Hall, excerpts from “Evidence Against Evolutionism From Molecular Biology”:

Protein Sequences

Scientists now know that proteins are extremely complicated three-dimensional chains of several thousand atoms. These atoms are arranged very precisely depending on the function of the protein. Each protein molecule is made up of a “backbone” of amino groups and carboxyl acid groups, linked by carbon atoms. All along the length of the molecule are amino acids, arranged as “side groups” in a very precise fashion, depending on the function of the protein.

As the study of protein molecules progressed, it became evident that proteins of similar function, but in different organisms, had slightly different sequences of amino acids.

Now the study has progressed to the point that it is possible to state with mathematical precision the degree of divergence (difference) in the amino acid sequences of similar proteins from one species to another. For example, a protein molecule that performs a certain function in the cell of a dog might be 17% different from a protein molecule that performs the same function in a fish.

Evolutionists expected that these differences would support their theory. They would have predicted that the protein molecules from the cell of yeast, for example, would perhaps be slightly different from the proteins that performed the same functions in a bacteria cell, but far more similar to the bacterial protein than the proteins from a vertebrate would be. The idea was that the yeast was closer to the bacteria on the “evolutionary ladder” than a vertebrate was, therefore their proteins should be more alike (less divergent). Evolution theory would have predicted that the differences between protein molecules would become gradually and progressively larger as organisms moved up the evolutionary ladder.

However, the evidence is now quite conclusive. The protein from yeast, to continue the above example, is as mathematically divergent from the bacteria protein as the protein from a human. And, in fact, so are the proteins from birds, fish, insects, and even plants!

Instead of a “chain” of divergences leading gradually up from simple species to complex ones, the proteins of each subclass are essentially “equidistant” in divergence from the proteins of the other subclasses. There are no “intermediates” connecting the subclasses.

This phenomenon has now been observed and cataloged for many proteins in many different species.

This evidence has been devastating for the theory that species have gradually changed from simple to complex. Had that theory been true, the divergences at a molecular level, where the changes must have taken place, would have grown gradually and sequentially larger and larger as the species moved up the evolutionary ladder. There should be no “breaks” in the degree of divergence, only a smooth continuum. Instead the differences are consistent and have startling mathematical precision.

Interdependent Molecular Functions

Another discovery that has been devastating for proponents of Darwinism is the amazing degree of interdependency that is found in the functions of the molecules of life.

For example, the mechanism of protein synthesis is dependent upon a cell membrane. But the cell membrane is dependent upon the existence of a protein synthesis mechanism!

Similarly, the protein synthesis mechanism requires energy. But the provision of that energy depends upon specific proteins that have already been synthesized.

In the same vein, the information for the assembly of protein components is stored in the DNA. But in order to obtain this information, proteins must exist that have been generated by the protein synthesis mechanism.

Cells have an accurate translational system (systems that allow the information contained in a DNA molecule to be transferred to other molecules) that totally depends on efficient enzymes. But these enzymes cannot be produced without an accurate translational system.

Examples could go on. The point is that it is impossible to conceive of a situation which gradually led to the conditions which enable a cell to self-replicate. The functions had to exist all at once, because each is dependent on the other. Read Steve Hall’s full article here

© 2000 Steve Hall (steve@aboundingjoy.com). Quoted by Permission, aboundingjoy.com

Image by Matthew Comstock | Illinois researchers developed a new technique that combines optical traps (red) with fluorescence (green) to study the proteins that regulate DNA.

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>