Hydrogen Fuel Cell Found in Nature

op complains of non-scientific attacks... dismisses everything with a

"oh an unintelligent design proponent"

I can equally say "A sky daddy worshiper who doesn't understand science, making grand statements about science"

yes its longer, but its more true


Estimated number of bacteria on the earth.... 5e30, which have somewhere between 10-100x more mutations per year... the probabilities like i said, are not in your favour when you actually look at the numbers and have experience with stats. This doesnt include virus or RNA containing things that mutate way way faster and have the ability to add or modify DNA of other organisms. Also your original 1e64 number is


Example just random one about probabilities

neutrinos have a low interaction cross section (interaction probability), the cross section at beta energies means the mean free path in lead... is over a light year in length.

So you might say... oh well impossible to detect interactions then. Especially in small detectors (Meter scale) Fact is, you do the stats and yep you expect 1 or 2 a day... ish.

Your number from the study you site for the 1:1e64 ratio... doesnt actually say what you think it says, its very specific regarding a single subject and is no way evidence for the existance of life to require a creator... like... at all

a reply to: cooperton

This is extremely fascinating. And truthfully in the STEM world it has been an exciting two plus weeks! I almost feel like we're on the verge of something big but it's not being talked about, the excitement just isn't there! It makes me scratch my head, because had all this have happened 10 years ago the world would be jumping in joy.

Perhaps we're all just too worn down collectively from Covid, Ukraine, financial stresses to really understand just what we're on the cusp of?

However, this natural fuel cell is new to me, thank you so much for sharing!

TL;DR: all the bacteria in the world would require 27,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to create one beneficial fold to increase the function of an enzyme. Clearly the alleged 14 billion years of our earth's existence is insufficient to create full proteins given these odds. The math is below.

originally posted by: ErosA433
cooperton doesn't understand science

Let's start by exposing your lack of knowledge on biology:

A human on average apparently has 37Trillion cells, so thats 2.03e23 atoms, or 4.05e22 base pairs.

Studies have shown that the mutation rate in humans is about 0.5e-9 mutations per base pair per year.

Thats... 2.03e13 expected changes per year in our DNA... our whole bodies. We deal with it mostly, but, with age obviously we sometimes don't deal with it so well and the chance we get cancer becomes about the 'survival bias' aspect of life, or the longer you live, the higher the chance you get unlucky with the mutations.

all those 2.03e13 expected changes per year in our DNA wouldn't matter, because the mutations have to occur in the sperm and the egg to pass the mutation on to the child. You know, because we're not asexual beings who split our body in half to make new offspring. Those numbers are therefore totally irrelevant to potential mutation rates that would impact their offspring. genetic alterations to somatic cells do not get passed on to human children.

Estimated number of bacteria on the earth.... 5e30, which have somewhere between 10-100x more mutations per year... the probabilities like i said, are not in your favour when you actually look at the numbers and have experience with stats. This doesnt include virus or RNA containing things that mutate way way faster and have the ability to add or modify DNA of other organisms. Also your original 1e64 number is

Let's check out the numbers:

total number of bacteria on earth: 5e30
mutation rate per generation: .003
generation span: 12 hrs on average

First we have to determine mutations in a year. There are 8760 hrs in 1 year. Therefore 8760 hrs in a year /12 hrs in a bacterial generation = 730 mutations per year per bacterial generational line.

To determine the total number of mutations of all the bacteria on earth per year we simply multiply the number of bacteria by the number of mutations per year:

5e30 x 730 =3.65e33

Given that the odds of a beneficial mutation to an enzyme fold are approximately 1 in 1e64, This global mutation rate is clearly not enough to satisfy even one successful enzyme fold change even over trillions upon trillions of year

Did you stop mid-sentence because you realized this is nowhere near sufficient to satisfy the 1e64 odds? The reason an enzyme fold is so difficult to mutate is because it requires a long sequence of specific DNA changes that must be able to create an electrochemical function capable of performing a specific task. This is the operable part of proteins and enzymes that allow them to do anything at all, so it is absolutely necessary to know how something like this could emerge by random chance mutations. And the probabilities are unimaginably low.

You also missed the part in the abstract of the paper which said 1e64 is just for any random enzyme fold, the odds of a relevant fold would be 1e77:

"Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10(77)"
source

Now going back to the 3.65e33 mutations per year for all bacterial life on the planet. If the odds are 1e77, then that means it would take 2.7e43 years just to make ONE successful mutation to an enzyme fold.

That means it would take 27,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to make one functional change to an enzyme fold by random chance.

Keep in mind that ATP synthase for example has multiple enzyme folds throughout, and that the electron transport chain itself has a multitude of proteins. All of which need to be in place and function properly for metabolism to be possible!

So we are quite clearly seeing that even in the billions of years that have been ascribed to our universe, that would be vastly insufficient for allowing this probability to hit.

That means it would take 27,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to make one functional change to an enzyme fold by random chance.

You don't have a clue what "random chance" means. There isn't a textbook on the planet which says that evolution is random chance. You make it up as you go along, typical of your ignorance.

Every biochemical reaction requires multiple components. If evolution was random chance, nothing would happen.

Definition of "random" as it applies to mutations:

random
Unpredictable in some way. Mutations are “random” in the sense that the sort of mutation that occurs cannot generally be predicted based upon the needs of the organism. However, this does not imply that all mutations are equally likely to occur or that mutations happen without any physical cause. Indeed, some regions of the genome are more likely to sustain mutations than others, and various physical causes (e.g., radiation) are known to cause particular types of mutations.

Your "random" theory just fell flat on its face.

Abstract

In live cells, protein folding often cannot occur spontaneously, but requires the participation of helper proteins - molecular chaperones and foldases. The mechanisms employed by chaperones markedly increase the effectiveness of protein folding, but have no bearing on the rate of this process,whereas foldases actually accelerate protein folding by exerting a direct influence on the rate-limiting steps of the overall reaction. Two types of foldases are known, using different principles of action. Peptidyl-prolyl cis/trans isomerase and protein-disulfide isomerase catalyze the folding of every protein that needs isomerization of prolyl peptide bonds or formation and isomerization of disulfide bonds for proper folding. By contrast, some foldases operating in the periplasm of bacterial cells are specifically designed to help in the folding of substrate proteins whose primary structure does not contain sufficient information for correct folding. In this review, we discuss recent data on the catalytic mechanisms of both types of foldases, focusing specifically on how a catalyst provides the structural information required for the folding of a target protein. Comparative analysis of the mechanisms employed by two different periplasmic foldases is used to substantiate the notion that combinations of a protein which is unable to fold independently and a specific catalyst delivering the necessary steric information are probably designed to achieve some particular biological purposes. The review also covers the problem of participation of peptidyl-prolyl cis/trans isomerase in different cellular functions, highlighting the role of this enzyme in conformational rearrangements of folded native proteins.

originally posted by: Phantom423

"That means it would take 27,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to make one functional change to an enzyme fold by random chance."

You don't have a clue what "random chance" means. There isn't a textbook on the planet which says that evolution is random chance.

"In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact random, and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful."
source

"The mechanisms of evolution — like natural selection and genetic drift — work with the random variation generated by mutation."
source

The changes to the DNA that would cause an altered sequence is most often random mutations. And yes, as you said before which I never disagreed with, the theorized selection of these would technically be non-random since it would be to a large degree environment-dependent whether or not this trait would imbue an advantage in the organism. Regardless, the fundamental mechanism that allows changes to the genetic code is, according to the theory, random mutation.

Those probabilities above are based on merely creating the correct sequence to make a functional enzyme fold, it does not even include the probability of that organism surviving and passing on that gene. So the true probability would be even lower than that astronomically low probability

Your "random" theory just fell flat on its face.


Abstract

In live cells, protein folding often cannot occur spontaneously, but requires the participation of helper proteins - molecular chaperones and foldases. The mechanisms employed by chaperones markedly increase the effectiveness of protein folding, but have no bearing on the rate of this process,whereas foldases actually accelerate protein folding by exerting a direct influence on the rate-limiting steps of the overall reaction. Two types of foldases are known, using different principles of action. Peptidyl-prolyl cis/trans isomerase and protein-disulfide isomerase catalyze the folding of every protein that needs isomerization of prolyl peptide bonds or formation and isomerization of disulfide bonds for proper folding. By contrast, some foldases operating in the periplasm of bacterial cells are specifically designed to help in the folding of substrate proteins whose primary structure does not contain sufficient information for correct folding. In this review, we discuss recent data on the catalytic mechanisms of both types of foldases, focusing specifically on how a catalyst provides the structural information required for the folding of a target protein. Comparative analysis of the mechanisms employed by two different periplasmic foldases is used to substantiate the notion that combinations of a protein which is unable to fold independently and a specific catalyst delivering the necessary steric information are probably designed to achieve some particular biological purposes. The review also covers the problem of participation of peptidyl-prolyl cis/trans isomerase in different cellular functions, highlighting the role of this enzyme in conformational rearrangements of folded native proteins.

Lol yes of course. But the paper I posted referring to protein folds is talking about the actual primary structure, i.e. the sequence of the code itself that ultimately leads to the protein to fold in a certain way. This paper you posted is dealing with post-translational folding, which is the tertiary structure of the protein. These are the chaperones that folds the protein into its shape after it is created by the ribosome.



Mutations are what change the primary structure, whereas folding involves the tertiary structure^

And yes, protein folding is extremely well-designed, meticulous, and non-random. The paper I posted is not referring to that process though, it is referring to the probability of mutations culminating in a successful change of DNA sequence ("primary structure") to allow the emergence of a new functional fold with post-translational processing.

a reply to: cooperton


It's' the natural process of self assembly. It happens in nature and can be reproduced in the lab. No magic wand required.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


It's' the natural process of self assembly. It happens in nature and can be reproduced in the lab. No magic wand required.

That's not true, If amino acids self-assembled then there would be blobs of amalgamated protein strands arising all throughout nature and malignantly within organisms. This would not allow life to exist. That is why amino acid polymerization is specifically controlled by enzymes, to ensure that not too much and not too little is created to allow the body proper homeostasis.

Dehydration synthesis (amino acid polymerization) is an endergonic process, meaning it is non-spontaneous in water:
more details

That is why amino acid polymerization is specifically controlled by enzymes,

a reply to: cooperton

And that's exactly what self assembly is - the process of organizing the components to trigger a reaction. No magic wand required.

originally posted by: Phantom423

"That is why amino acid polymerization is specifically controlled by enzymes"

And that's exactly what self assembly is - the process of organizing the components to trigger a reaction. No magic wand required.

No that's the opposite of what self-assembly is. If something can Self-assemble, then that means it does not need help from enzymatic catalysis.

a reply to: cooperton


It's' the natural process of self assembly. It happens in nature and can be reproduced in the lab. No magic wand required.

originally posted by: Ulven
a reply to: cooperton

This is extremely fascinating. And truthfully in the STEM world it has been an exciting two plus weeks! I almost feel like we're on the verge of something big but it's not being talked about, the excitement just isn't there! It makes me scratch my head, because had all this have happened 10 years ago the world would be jumping in joy.

Perhaps we're all just too worn down collectively from Covid, Ukraine, financial stresses to really understand just what we're on the cusp of?

However, this natural fuel cell is new to me, thank you so much for sharing!

Exactly, to suppose such a thing would be found in nature out to raise an eyebrow... Yet there it was within our biological systems the whole time!

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


It's' the natural process of self assembly. It happens in nature and can be reproduced in the lab. No magic wand required.

Are you glitching again?

originally posted by: Phantom423
You don't have a clue what "random chance" means. There isn't a textbook on the planet which says that evolution is random chance. You make it up as you go along, typical of your ignorance.

While I don't hold myself out as some kind of expert on what every possible textbook ever written about evolution says (unlike some people), Cooperton has already demonstrated multiple sources saying that at least some of it is indeed random.

The point I'd like to make though, is to point out the obvious...

Left to its own devices in its raw state, nature follows the laws of entropy.

Life, on the other hand, is negentropic in nature.

What I find amusing are those who claim with godlike certainty that we all evolved from microbes, without even acknowledging there are legitimate questions regarding what is driving the negentropic aspect of life.

You claim these mutations are not random? Then what, pray tell, is driving them? In other words, how can you be so arrogantly certain that there is no intelligent design behind it all?

Personally, in my opinion, the very best that any sane, rational honest scientists can do is simply shrug and say ...

I ... don't ... know.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
You claim these mutations are not random? Then what, pray tell, is driving them? In other words, how can you be so arrogantly certain that there is no intelligent design behind it all?

How many times must it be repeated that even if mutations are random (there seems to be some debate about this, but let's assume they are random for this discussion), the selection process is not random so the overall process is not random. I already explained this, here's a source explaining a correction to the "random" misconception:

evolution.berkeley.edu...

MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.

CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random.

For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about “by chance.” They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens “by chance” ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation, visit our article on DNA and mutations.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: tanstaafl

How many times must it be repeated that even if mutations are random (there seems to be some debate about this, but let's assume they are random for this discussion), the selection process is not random so the overall process is not random. I already explained thisNA and mutations.

Irrelevant and totally off point to my post.

Try again.

a reply to: tanstaafl

its actually not, and most of the arrogance comes from those who wish to insert god into everything as a default.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: tanstaafl

its actually not, and most of the arrogance comes from those who wish to insert god into everything as a default.

I'm still waiting on your response.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: tanstaafl

its actually not,

It actually is... otherwise, by all means, explain exactly how your response was even remotely relevant to my precise question:

"You claim these mutations are not random? Then what, pray tell, is driving them? In other words, how can you be so arrogantly certain that there is no intelligent design behind it all?"

By all means, point to even one sentence in your long winded response addressing that question.

and most of the arrogance comes from those who wish to insert god into everything as a default.

Perfect deflection by someone who arrogantly denies even a remote possibility of some kind of intelligent design.

No one or no thing could possibly be smarter than you... am-i-rite?

a reply to: tanstaafl

Perfect deflection by someone who arrogantly denies even a remote possibility of some kind of intelligent design.

What you don't understand is that science requires evidence. There's no evidence for or against the existence of a god or any other supernatural creature. That's why science doesn't deal with it. It's a personal choice. No one is obliged to acknowledge the possibility of any supernatural creature. It just isn't necessary. You believe it, fine. But don't force your beliefs on others.

No evidence = no science. That's it.

There are over 500 peer-reviewed journals and hundreds of thousands of articles on various topics in evolutionary biology.
If you don't agree with any of the content, then it's incumbent on YOU to prove they're wrong. Cooperton has never done that because he can't.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Life, on the other hand, is negentropic in nature.

Look up Gibbs free energy in biological systems. If you don't understand it, then do the research.

P.S. This is for your benefit, not mine. I'm not discussing science with you or Cooperton because neither one of you is a trained scientist.

originally posted by: Phantom423

There are over 500 peer-reviewed journals and hundreds of thousands of articles on various topics in evolutionary biology.
If you don't agree with any of the content, then it's incumbent on YOU to prove they're wrong. Cooperton has never done that because he can't.

Lol I literally used a peer-reviewed paper from the field of evolutionary biology to draw the numbers I used in the original post. Debate the science, I dare you. We don't even have to go back more than a page to see you trying to cite a journal article to make your point, but it had nothing to do with the odds of mutating DNA sequences to give rise to specific protein folds. You still probably don't understand the difference between primary and tertiary protein structures. I am just speaking matter-of-factly here, you're out of your league sport.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Look up Gibbs free energy in biological systems. If you don't understand it, then do the research.

You have no room to talk. Guess what the Gibbs free energy is for amino acid polymerization? It is positive, meaning it is a non-spontaneous reaction. That is why it does not self assemble, and instead needs a catalyst. That is why abiogenesis is a hopeless theory. Your inability to grasp this simple thermodynamic facet shows that you're the one who needs to go research Gibbs free energy. You have yet to ever admit you were wrong on this, and you still try to double down on your ignorance from time to time saying that it actually does self-assemble. You even did it again earlier on this page hahaha.

P.S. This is for your benefit, not mine. I'm not discussing science with you or Cooperton because neither one of you is a trained scientist.

No it's because you're incapable of entering a scientific debate without getting destroyed. Time and time again you show your ignorance. Like the time you thought they were actually using a measuring device the size of a planet in a real experiment. Hahaha, absolutely rich.