Continued Discussion with cls515

[cls515]

Actually, from a scientific standpoint, lack of proof, especially after so long a period of time, is a very good reason to discard a hypothesis.
Also, scientists are collecting more evidence as to the origin of life every day. Your strawman argument relates to the exact moment life began, and its relation to our existence. The main problem with your example is, we can physically observe our existence. We can repeat that observation over and over. The same cannot be done for a god.

First, you make observations. Then, you form a hypothesis. Then, you test this hypothesis. Lack of proof does not discredit a hypothesis. It does not confirm it either.

Proteins are amino acid chains, made up from 20 different amino acids, also referred to as residues, that fold into unique three-dimensional protein structures. The shape in which a protein naturally folds is known as its native state, which is determined by its sequence of amino acids. under 40 residues the term peptide is frequently used. A certain number of residues is necessary to perform a particular biochemical function, and around 40-50 residues appears to be the lower limit for a functional domain size. Protein sizes range from this lower limit to several thousand residues in multi-functional or structural proteins. However, the current estimate for the average protein length is around 300 residues. Very large aggregates can be formed from protein subunits, for example many thousand actin molecules assemble into an actin filament. Large protein complexes with RNA are found in the ribosome particles, which are in fact 'ribozymes'.[/I]
I would have to assume, from your incorrect statements about how much we know about proteins, that your knowledge of biochemistry is even more dated than mine. I was just scratching the surface of what we know. I regularly read biochem articles in scientific journals. The number of these articles is really staggering. But this really has nothing to do with our discussion.
What you're alluding to is an example of the "Watchmaker analogy" put forth by William Paley in 1803, and which has been debunked repeatedly since. The watchmaker argument basically says you can't have something complex, like a watch, without a watchmaker. For a complete explanation of the problems, and proof against such an argument you should read Dawkins, Richard, 1986. The Blind Watchmaker: why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. New York: Norton.

I'm familiar with biochemistry. My education is not outdated. We know that the interactions between amino acids drive conformation, but there is more to it than that. There are four degrees to conformation, with the fourh being how one protein interacts with another protein forming one functional 3-d protein. We know this. But our crystalline studies used to observe the 3-d structure is vague. We just don't have the observations of it. On some we do. But like I said these are very very few and far between. Does our lack of observation disprove 3-d shape? No, because we know it happens. It is just more research is necessary. And, I'm not talking about any watchmaker problem.

[SmokinDVM]

First, you make observations. Then, you form a hypothesis. Then, you test this hypothesis. Lack of proof does not discredit a hypothesis. It does not confirm it either.

Can you describe the test you would use to test your hypothesis that god has a hand in the creation of life?

I'm familiar with biochemistry. My education is not outdated. We know that the interactions between amino acids drive conformation, but there is more to it than that. There are four degrees to conformation, with the fourh being how one protein interacts with another protein forming one functional 3-d protein. We know this. But our crystalline studies used to observe the 3-d structure is vague. We just don't have the observations of it. On some we do. But like I said these are very very few and far between. Does our lack of observation disprove 3-d shape? No, because we know it happens. It is just more research is necessary. And, I'm not talking about any watchmaker problem.

Actually, their are about 5,000+ proteins in a living organism, about 30% of which are lipid soluble (most are water soluble). It's these lipid soluble proteins that scientists were having a problem with. However, that problem was at least partially solved several years ago.
Anyway, you were using a "watchmaker argument" in your post. You stated that due to the complexity of life, you knew god had to have a hand in its creation.