Evidence for God from Science

KBCid wrote:... One of the things that I have studied a bit is that the 3 dimensional shapes of proteins affects their function. This may be an aspect that Baugh also understands and may be why he infers a toxicity change based on the pictures produced from his experiments which show structural changes. This to me would be well within logical inference to assert a possible change of toxicity since the current evidence from biology has empirically proven protein shape affects function and if current shapes produce toxic results then what might one infer from a protein shape change? less toxic would be one valid hypothesis wouldn't you agree?
... The thing here Sandy is that venom is mostly protein so really interpretation of protein images is what is happening and a fair amount of science now works by way of analysis of these 3D images of protein structures. This type of imaging can be used to empirically back or eliminate Baugh's theory.

I agree that changes in the shapes of proteins can affect their function. I disagree that his pictures have little if anything to do with shapes of proteins. I have never seen any similar pictures. Can anyone point me to some? Here's a drawing of the 3-D structure of a copperhead venom protein. How does this fit with Baugh's pictures?

Journal of Molecular Biology
Volume 283, Issue 3, 30 October 1998, Pages 657–668
Regular article
Crystalstructures of acutolysin A, a three-disulfide hemorrhagic zinc metalloproteinase from the snake venom of Agkistrodon acutus1
Weimin Gong1, Xueyong Zhu1, Sijiu Liu1, Maikun Teng1, Liwen Niu1, 2, ,

How sharper than a serpent's tooth

Yes, the shape of a protein can absolutely affect it's function, no one disputes that.

The issue is that Baugh makes his claim without testing the claim. Seeing a shape change could very well affect the function....but so does heating it, or exposing it to acid...but that does not negate a protein's original function. His claim is unsubstantiated with regards to the toxicity and certainly he cannot and there is no way he can point to that change in toxicity, even if it's true, to the pre-fall conditions. Simply, we can never know what the conditions were.

While the shape looks slightly different, it may of may not affect the toxicity.

The philosophical problem remain to have a non-toxic venom in pointed, hypodermic like fangs...

zoegirl wrote:Problem is, Baugh presents it as not a theory. He starts off presuming a condition of antediluvian earth that no one can know. Even supposing that the earth/eden was perfect, no one could ever prove that the pressure was higher, the oxygen higher, etc, etc....all of his models are pure guesses. Then he sets about "proving" these by strange methods that do not support the hypothesis. All he has are EM pics.

Zoegirl I too see his overstepping, that is a given and were it not for the other anecdotal evidences I too would be a bit more dismissive of such a claim. At this point it is not simply Baugh that asserts a differing antidiluvian environment. If you look back in my posts there should be references to other sources that are science based which have impressive testing thats allows them to make a similar conclusion of greater air pressure and higher oxygen content. so at this point one cannot simply dismiss Baugh on that basis as you woud need to refute each of these other scientific studies backing the concept.
I also agree that he has not provided enough evidence on his own for his assertion of less toxicity. I have however, seen similar images of structures in past scientific articles though admitedly not exactly the same type of view. So that is a very poorly backed assertion on that particulary point. Here again it is not so much the pictures that prove anything, it is again the anecdotal evidence I pointed out where an inference was made that the possibility of the chambers environment was having an effect on poison toxicity. Which would require you to also cast convincing doubt on their study.
It is like a house of cards that could be completely collapsed by one single valid experiment. The problem is that no one has taken the time to do the experiment and my position here is that we should not discard the theory until the experiment has been done.

sandy_mcd wrote: I agree that changes in the shapes of proteins can affect their function. I disagree that his pictures have little if anything to do with shapes of proteins. I have never seen any similar pictures. Can anyone point me to some? Here's a drawing of the 3-D structure of a copperhead venom protein. How does this fit with Baugh's pictures?

Your points are well within realistic bounds. I have no specific answers at this time. It is like we have been given merely a taste of what may be with only a few tiny other tastes to work with that incite a desire to look further for me.

zoegirl wrote: The issue is that Baugh makes his claim without testing the claim. Seeing a shape change could very well affect the function....but so does heating it, or exposing it to acid...but that does not negate a protein's original function. His claim is unsubstantiated with regards to the toxicity and certainly he cannot and there is no way he can point to that change in toxicity, even if it's true, to the pre-fall conditions.

Ideally we should both prefer an outside agent to perform the same experiment to back or eliminate his claim. He has without doubt provided a very weak basis for the claim.

zoegirl wrote:Simply, we can never know what the conditions were. While the shape looks slightly different, it may of may not affect the toxicity.

I think here I would disagree with you on never being able to know. As I pointed out above there are a fair amount of other investigators who are providing much better evidence for that envirnment and they are pointing to the same rationale that baugh does. So to knock him down you must also knock the others down.

zoegirl wrote:The philosophical problem remain to have a non-toxic venom in pointed, hypodermic like fangs...

How do you rationalize the biblical account of the creatures existing in a state of no harm in the new creation to come? Would you not need to ask the same philosophical question of God for how that would work? I'm at a loss to explain it and yet there it is in fairly plain and specific language for all to see.

Whether or not we can see that higher pressure affects things does not prove that the conditions were that way. That's my issue.

Saying that "this condition" makes something better does not necessary mean that the conditions were that way. Most of his assertions are simply that, assertions. There is no way we can ever know

interesting thread.
There is little question that fangs function to deliver venom. The function of venom is to kill potential prey. I don't see how one can argue with that. Venomous snakes are well designed killing machines.

I suppose one solution (and it is mere speculation) is that God created creatures with potentials that weren't necessarily actualized.

jlay wrote:interesting thread.
There is little question that fangs function to deliver venom. The function of venom is to kill potential prey. I don't see how one can argue with that. Venomous snakes are well designed killing machines.

I suppose one solution (and it is mere speculation) is that God created creatures with potentials that weren't necessarily actualized.

Or that, if one subscribes to evolution based on adaptation to environmental change, perhaps snakes evolved to have venom and fangs to adapt to the fallen environment they were in.

zoegirl wrote:Whether or not we can see that higher pressure affects things does not prove that the conditions were that way. That's my issue. Saying that "this condition" makes something better does not necessary mean that the conditions were that way. Most of his assertions are simply that, assertions. There is no way we can ever know

Initially I would agree that the asserted conditions may not prove his theory and you can indeed simply discount it as having any explanitory power but, this may just be the tip of the iceberg that can tie many unexplainable facts together. In one of the references I gave there was talk about how it may explain the ability of huge dinosaurs to fly. As a mechanical engineer I analyse many things from a perspective that most others don't and the extremely large flying dino's has been a huge one for me because under current conditions they would not have been able to fly. Thus, it becomes logical to look for any evidence for an environmental change having occured in the distant past. The assertions made by a number of people in conjunction with biblical inferences makes the concept more than just a possibility. I will reference the largest flying dino so that you can see what science has found in the fossil record and see for yourself what I am refering to;

Quetzalcoatlus was a pterodactyloid pterosaur known from the Late Cretaceous of North America (Maastrichtian stage, about 68–65.5 million years ago), and one of the largest known flying animals of all time...
...recent estimates based on greater knowledge of azhdarchid proportions place its wingspan at 10–11 meters (33–36 ft).

There are quite a few sites that discuss the point about flight by the giants. Here is one you can peruse;

...The Paradox of Flying Pterosaurs
...Currently the 12 m wingspan Quetzalcoatlus is the largest known pterosaur, but it is not alone as some freak of nature. There are at least half dozen pterosaurs with wingspans over five meters. For comparison, a few of the largest flying birds of today are the 2.9 m wingspan 10.4 kg California Condor, the 3.5 m wingspan 11 kg Wandering Albatross, and the 2.4 m wingspan 15 kg Mute Swan...
...When flying the Quetzalcoatlus has the same profile as the Mute Swan. When we scale the data for the Mute Swan to the Quetzalcoatlus’ 12 m wingspan the estimated mass for the Quetzalcoatlus is 1900 kg...
...While standing the Quetzalcoatlus stands as tall and has a similar profile to a giraffe...

...The largest pterosaurs, the Quetzalcoatlus, had a wingspan greater than the recreational plane Cessna 172. The size of a Quetzalcoatlus could also be compared to an extremely large horse, yet it is questionable if the cold-blooded Quetzalcoatlus could produce the power of a horse. The Cessna flies because it is equipped with a 160 horsepower engine. If an object of this size requires 160 hp to fly yet does not have even one horse power, then any rational aerodynamic engineer would conclude that the Quetzalcoatlus is not even close to having the power required to fly in today’s atmospheric environment...

...It is possible for the density of the atmosphere to change. This may be important since air density is one of the variables in the flight equations. A lot can happen in millions of years and there is evidence that some changes in the Earth’s atmosphere did occur. This will be addressed in the later chapters. http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/flight_animals.html

So just possibly when God said:

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
Job 40:18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
Job 40:19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

There is also the evidence that plants and such grew to tremendous sizes compared to todays types and logically there would be a reason. Environmental change would most probably explain the difference IMHO. Anyway that is about all I have on this subject at the moment and it may not be enough to pique your interest in the theoretical scientific end but I have hopes that experimentation will continue in this vein and then just maybe we might know how God may have eliminated the giants by changing the environment faster than the creatures could adapt.

There is so many of the comments that I can agree with and there are some that seem a little round the barrel .. however.. I agree and struggle with this understanding too!!! MY GRIPE IS WHAT ABOUT THE ANIMALS.. LOOK ON YOUTUBE JUST HOW MANY ANIMALS ARE EATEN UP ALIVE BY BOT FLIES, MANGO WORMS, FLEAS, TICKS AND LARVAE!!!!!!!!!! WHAT [removed by a mod] HAS ANIMALS DONE TO DESERVE SUCH PUNISHMENT???????? I'D GO CRAZY IF MY CAT OR DOG EVER ARE CONSUMED BY THESE PARASITES!!! They played no part in the fall of man and yet we martyr, abuse and eat them, and we neglect them to be consumed alive!! My heart breaks at this notion!! I'm at the point where I have no care if humans are eaten alive, however I ask God why he allows animal abuse, when they have not committed sin nor crime??? I have seen too much evil in humans to feel they deserve to better treated than animals.. animals deserve Gods mercy and not evil man!

Yea I can't understand it either. Though, at least in the New World all animals and people will be at peace with one another.

charldre: There is so many of the comments that I can agree with and there are some that seem a little round the barrel .. however.. I agree and struggle with this understanding too!!! MY GRIPE IS WHAT ABOUT THE ANIMALS.. L

Charldre, welcome to the Godandscience.org discussion forum - tell us a bit about yourself!

Philip