Please let's ascertain something. We can actually do a research on the veracity of the claims of Akin1212 and DoctorAlien.

I have understood both of their views on the hydrolysis of protein by water.

But before I dab in, I'll like to know what your area of study is @DoctorAlien, since Akin's field has been established already.

butterflyl1on:


Watch him begin dropping insults on you for his blatant ignorant knowledge

Water isn't involved in hydrolysis indeed.

He didn't say water is not involved in hydrolysis, you don't have to this. He said water is not involved in the hydrolysis of Proteins. These are two different things.

Graycoder:
Please let's ascertain something. We can actually do a research on the veracity of the claims of Akin1212 and DoctorAlien.

I have understood both of their views on the hydrolysis of protein by water.

But before I dab in, I'll like to know what your area of study is @DoctorAlien, since Akin's field has been established already.

Alien has a doctorate in regurgitating answersingenesis and pasting googled articles he has little to no understanding about

Graycoder:


He didn't say water is not involved in hydrolysis, you don't have to this. He said water is not involved in the hydrolysis of Proteins. These are two different things.

Water is involved in the hydrolysis of proteins.

His argument that such hydrolysis is too slow to be of consequence is flawed. In practice, enzymes are involved, which speed up the hydrolysis. Also, the difficulty in the hydrolysis has a lot to do with exposing the bonds, as proteins tend to wind around themselves.

"Hydro" should give you a clue the water is involved. Sorry, but his statement was a gaffe of major proportions.

Graycoder:


He didn't say water is not involved in hydrolysis, you don't have to this. He said water is not involved in the hydrolysis of Proteins. These are two different things.

Two amino acids can react in a condensation reaction to form a peptide bond and release water. Yet he says water isn't involved?

Last time I checked long chains of amino acids are also called proteins. So which part does not Involve water?

A peptide bond can be broken by hydrolysis (the addition of water). In the presence of water they will break down. The process is extremely slow, with the half life at 25C of between 350 and 600 years per bond.

So how is water not involved?

sinequanon:


Water is involved in the hydrolysis of proteins.

His argument that such hydrolysis is too slow to be of consequence is flawed. In practice, enzymes are involved, which speed up the hydrolysis. Also, the difficulty in the hydrolysis has a lot to do with exposing the bonds, as proteins tend to wind around themselves.

"Hydro" should give you a clue the water is involved. Sorry, but his statement was a gaffe of major proportions.

Major goof by an alleged biochemist

sinequanon:


Water is involved in the hydrolysis of proteins.

His argument that such hydrolysis is too slow to be of consequence is flawed. In practice, enzymes are involved, which speed up the hydrolysis. Also, the difficulty in the hydrolysis has a lot to do with exposing the bonds, as proteins tend to wind around themselves.

"Hydro" should give you a clue the water is involved. Sorry, but his statement was a gaffe of major proportions.

1. He is not wrong sir. Do you agree with me that a reaction that is as slow as the hydrolysis of proteins which may take up 700 years will never complete? Given that nobody will stay that long to observe it.

2. You did not obviously investigate the genesis of the protein hydrolysis brouhaha. I investigated and this was what happened.
DoctorAlien said the fact that evolution proposed that proteins were built from amino acids in the presence of water falsifies evolution because in the presence of water proteins will be hydrolyzed back to amino acids.
- But due to the information we have now, it is possible for proteins to remain intact for 700 years in the presence of water. Do you agree?

3. So I conclude that Akin1212 is not wrong because nobody or no protein will be immersed in water for 700 years, hence evolution is viable.

4. Hydro doesn't mean water is involved. Acids and bases also break down proteins into amino acids and it is still called hydrolysis.

Sir, you are the one making a gaffe of major proportions here.

butterflyl1on:



Two amino acids can react in a condensation reaction to form a peptide bond and release water. Yet he says water isn't involved?

Last time I checked long chains of amino acids are also called proteins. So which part does not Involve water?

A peptide bond can be broken by hydrolysis (the addition of water). In the presence of water they will break down. The process is extremely slow, with the half life at 25C of between 350 and 600 years per bond.

So how is water not involved?

Please sir, may I ask if you know what brought about this protein hydrolysis talk? I have read the posts of these guys. Your contribution shows you have not done that.

Akin1212 did not say water is not eliminated in the condensation reactions of amino acids. And when water is eliminated in condensation reactions, it is not said to be involved, it is a by-product instead.

I'm glad you said 600 years, DoctorAlien said evolution cannot take place because protein cannot exist in water, he said the protein would break down into amino acids. But according to you now, we have seen that protein can remain intact for 600 years. AND THAT REALLY MEANS EVOLUTION IS POSSIBLE BASED ON YOUR FACTS.

Graycoder:


1. He is not wrong sir. Do you agree with me that a reaction that is as slow as the hydrolysis of proteins which may take up 700 years will never complete? Given that nobody will stay that long to observe it.

Chief, the reaction takes a matter of hours with enzymes. These enzymes catalyze the reaction.

Also, he refers to the hydrolysis of protein, himself, and says that it doesn't involve water!

sinequanon:


Chief, the reaction takes a matter of hours with enzymes. These enzymes catalyze the reaction.

Also, he refers to the hydrolysis of protein, himself, and says that it doesn't involve water!

1. So sir, in light of enzymes, can you give me one natural enzyme that would make this hydrolysis possible under natural conditions that would prevent the process of evolution to take place? I would really appreciate that

2. If a reaction takes place naturally and it takes 600 years to break one bond out of thousands of bonds, say for instance 1000 bonds. It means it would take 700 thousand years to hydrolyze just one protein out of like say 10 thousand proteins in one person or animal. This means it would take 7 billion years for one animal to melt into amino acids.

3. In light of this obvious facts, Akin1212 is outrightly correct about his words. I believe he is really a Biochemist and he is very correct.

Graycoder:
4. Hydro doesn't mean water is involved. Acids and bases also break down proteins into amino acids and it is still called hydrolysis.

That is not a logical argument. I said that hydro- gives you a clue.

You clearly don't understand what hydrolysis means. Water is involved whether you use an acid or a base.

sinequanon:


That is not a logical argument. I said that hydro- gives you a clue.

You clearly don't understand what hydrolysis means. Water is involved whether you use an acid or a base.

But irrespective of the clue, the FACT is that hydro does not mean water is involved in hydrolysis. It may mean acid and bases, given that these substances are aqueous solutions. But that's not the argument.

We are talking about water directly. And please let me remind you, they were not arguing about hydrolysis in general, they were arguing "hydrolysis of proteins."

Water do not hydrolyse all compounds readily.

Graycoder:
1. So sir, in light of enzymes, can you give me one natural enzyme that would make this hydrolysis possible under natural conditions that would prevent the process of evolution to take place? I would really appreciate that.

I can't even decipher what you have written. Hydrolysis of proteins happen in the body all the time. It involves water, acid and enzymes.

As for the "prevention of the process of evolution taking place", that has nothing to do with the statement that "hydrolysis of proteins does not involve water"!

Graycoder:


But irrespective of the clue, the FACT is that hydro does not mean water is involved in hydrolysis. It may mean acid and bases, given that these substances are aqueous solutions. But that's not the argument.

We are talking about water directly. And please let me remind you, they were not arguing about hydrolysis in general, they were arguing "hydrolysis of proteins."

Water do not hydrolyse all compounds readily.

When chemists talk about water being "involved" or a "water molecule being added", they don't mean that the protein reacted directly with water. They may even talk of a compound "losing a water molecule", which would make no sense at all if you interpreted it the way you are doing.

sinequanon:


I can't even decipher what you have written. Hydrolysis of proteins happen in the body all the time. It involves water, acid and enzymes.

As for the "prevention of the process of evolution taking place", that has nothing to do with the statement that "hydrolysis of proteins does not involve water"!

1. Now you are contradicting yourself. You said hydrolysis of water only take place slowly and takes several hundreds of years. This means it cannot happen in anybody's lifetime. Which inturn means it is impossible.

2.Then you said it can be made fast by using enzymes, I agree with this. But concerning he arguments of Akin1212 and DoctorAlien, they were arguing in respect to the formation of body proteins during evolution. DoctorAlien said proteins would break down if water was present, hence evolution cannot be true. This means if proteins are formed now now, then they would break down again in the presence of water.

3. Akin1212 said water cannot break down protein. I remember he said water can be added to more water. And according to the facts conceded to by you that it may take 700 years, then it means it is impossible, and hence evolution can take place.

4. Hydrolysis of edible proteins that takes place in the body is called digestion and it solely depends on HCL and Pepsin alone. Wheter water is present or not.

So evolution is related to the hydrolysis of proteins. That was the argument

sinequanon:


When chemists talk about water being "involved" or a "water molecule being added", they don't mean that the protein reacted directly with water. They may even talk of a compound "losing a water molecule", which would make no sense at all if you interpreted it the way you are doing.

Water does not hydrolyze all compounds, water also hydrates.

The conditions allowed for hydrolysis must be met before it takes place. If the conditions are not met, nothing will happen.

It is not automatic. Hydrolysis is not automatic. Water can hydrate or hydrolyze depending on the conditions met.

Can I know your area of study before we continue? Chemists don't use the language "water is involved," we are not confusionists. There specific scientific languages you use in science. They either use words like, reacted, added, eliminated, and produced. What do you mean by involved in science?

Graycoder:


1. Now you are contradicting yourself. You said hydrolysis of water only take place slowly and takes several hundreds of years. This means it cannot happen in anybody's lifetime. Which inturn means it is impossible.

2.Then you said it can be made fast by using enzymes, I agree with this. But concerning he arguments of Akin1212 and DoctorAlien, they were arguing in respect to the formation of body proteins during evolution. DoctorAlien said proteins would break down if water was present, hence evolution cannot be true. This means if proteins are formed now now, then they would break down again in the presence of water.

3. Akin1212 said water cannot break down protein. I remember he said water can be added to more water. And according to the facts conceded to by you that it may take 700 years, then it means it is impossible, and hence evolution can take place.

4. Hydrolysis of edible proteins that takes place in the body is called digestion and it solely depends on HCL and Pepsin alone. Wheter water is present or not.

So evolution is related to the hydrolysis of proteins. That was the argument

You are confusing yourself by conflating the argument and my rebuttal of a statement made by Akin1212. In doing so, I was not defending anybody else's argument. I don't "takes sides and work backwards" when I debate.

You are wrong. You cannot hydrolyze protein with HCL and pepsin alone.

Graycoder:


Water does not hydrolyze all compounds, water also hydrates.

The conditions allowed for hydrolysis must be met before it takes place. If the conditions are not met, nothing will happen.

It is not automatic. Hydrolysis is not automatic. Water can hydrate or hydrolyze depending on the conditions met.

And?

Graycoder:
Can I know your area of study before we continue? Chemists don't use the language "water is involved," we are not confusionists. There specific scientific languages you use in science. They either use words like, reacted, added, eliminated, and produced. What do you mean by involved in science?

Nope. Argue the facts.

Hydrolysis is a reaction that breaks down a molecule using the elements of water. That is the sense in which "water is involved". The language a chemist would use depends on the situation. If it was a peer reviewed paper, he would have to explain precisely the word "involved".

sinequanon:


You are confusing yourself by conflating the argument and my rebuttal of a statement made by Akin1212. In doing so, I was not defending anybody else's argument. I don't "takes sides and work backwards" when I debate.

You are wrong. You cannot hydrolyze protein with HCL and pepsin alone.

Protein digestion depends on HCL(for hydrolysis) and Pepsin(Proteolysis) in the stomach alone. Hcl denatures the protein and also provides an acidic environment for Pepsin and enzymes break the bonds. Water has no input.

If you disagree, give me credible links that say water is involved in the digestion of proteins

Water is needed in the body for many things such movement of molecules, regulation of temperature etc etc etc, but for breaking down protein? NO. CAPITAL NO.

sinequanon:


And?



Nope. Argue the facts.

Hydrolysis is a reaction that breaks down a molecule using the elements of water. That is the sense in which "water is involved". The language a chemist would use depends on the situation. If it was a peer reviewed paper, he would have to explain precisely the word "involved".

Oga, water can be involved in hydrolysis, I didn't say it cannot. But so can Acids and Bases, not water alone. And when acids and bases are hydrolyzing, water is not necessarily a reactant there.

Now, the fact is water does not hydrolyze all compounds, acids and bases can also hydrolyze compounds. This is the case when it comes to proteins. Why are you becoming anti-knowledge for goodness sake?

Whether he explains or not, it is non-academical for a chemist to use "involve" when talking scientifically.

The conditions for hydrolyzing must be met before it even starts at all.

Anyway, I have no religion.

But I posit that the theory of evolution is nothing more than an unproven hypothesis.

It is equivocal and opaque in regards the teleological argument.

(Specifically, its claim that random, "undirected" mutations feed the evolutionary process.)

The theory justifies the use of the idea of undirectedness firstly by claiming that direction is not necessary to account for biology, but at the same time, hides behind the claim that "chance does not require any explanation". Therefore, it makes a teleological argument, without any evidence.

Graycoder:


Please sir, may I ask if you know what brought about this protein hydrolysis talk? I have read the posts of these guys. Your contribution shows you have not done that.

Akin1212 did not say water is not eliminated in the condensation reactions of amino acids. And when water is eliminated in condensation reactions, it is not said to be involved, it is a by-product instead.

I'm glad you said 600 years, DoctorAlien said evolution cannot take place because protein cannot exist in water, he said the protein would break down into amino acids. But according to you now, we have seen that protein can remain intact for 600 years. AND THAT REALLY MEANS EVOLUTION IS POSSIBLE BASED ON YOUR FACTS.

Is 600 years the millions of years it allegedly took evolution to occur? Protein does not exist in water but breaks down in water very slowly. The entire break down takes that long and it's a process which culminates within a 600 year period. This nullifies evolution rather than support it.

Graycoder:


Oga, water can be involved in hydrolysis, I didn't say it cannot. But so can Acids and Bases, not water alone. And when acids and bases are hydrolyzing, water is not necessarily a reactant there.

Chief, you are repeating some basic stuff that nobody is arguing about, but your earlier incorrect supposition that you could hydrolyze protein with HCL and an enzyme alone actually demonstrates the problem nicely. Water HAS TO BE INVOLVED as per the definition I gave.

The word "involved" covers "reactant" and ALL other situations.

Now, the fact is water does not hydrolyze all compounds, acids and bases can also hydrolyze compounds. This is the case when it comes to proteins. Why are you becoming anti-knowledge for goodness sake?

I am not. You are repeating basic things that nobody is arguing about, without acknowledging that your own terminology has led you astray into believing that you can hydrolyze protein with HCL and an enzyme alone.

The conditions for hydrolyzing must be met before it even starts at all.

Chief, is it anti-knowledge for me to ignore this truism? (While you ignore the substantive point)

butterflyl1on:


Is 600 years the millions of years it allegedly took evolution to occur? Protein does not exist in water but breaks down in water very slowly. The entire break down takes that long and it's a process which culminates within a 600 year period. This nullifies evolution rather than support it.

Does the word 'reproduction' mean anything to you? Is it conceivable to you that living organisms can significantly multiply their populations within this 600yr time scale?

butterflyl1on:


Is 600 years the millions of years it allegedly took evolution to occur? Protein does not exist in water but breaks down in water very slowly. The entire break down takes that long and it's a process which culminates within a 600 year period. This nullifies evolution rather than support it.

It could be more than millions if you consider evolution. 600 years for one bond of protein that contains 10 thousand bonds and an organism that contains 1000 proteins.

That's 600 X 10000 X 1000 = 6 billion years for an organism to melt back into amino acids.

And the constant absence of water will mean that the process will have to start again. That is supposing I am the organism in question, if I enter water today, I must remain there for 6 billion years to melt into amino acids. If I leave the water tomorrow and enter next tomorrow, the 6 billion years will start counting from next tomorrow again. That makes it impossible for water to ever hydrolyze protein under natural conditions. And since evolution took place under natural conditions, then evolution is very very viable and hydrolysis of proteins is impossible.

Graycoder:


Protein digestion depends on HCL(for hydrolysis) and Pepsin(Proteolysis) in the stomach alone. Hcl denatures the protein and also provides an acidic environment for Pepsin and enzymes break the bonds. Water has no input.

If you disagree, give me credible links that say water is involved in the digestion of proteins.

Sir, your argument is not flowing logically.

You claim that "HCL (a gas at room temperature) and Pepsin ALONE can hydrolyze protein."

Then you ask for a link that says water is "involved in the digestion of protein". There is no reason for any article to make such a vague statement.

Why have you suddenly switched from "hydrolysis" to "digestion"? The involvement of water in hydrolysis is as per the definition I gave you.

Hydrolysis is a reaction that breaks down a molecule using the elements of water.

You want a link to this fact?

sinequanon:
It is equivocal and opaque in regards the teleological argument.

(Specifically, its claim that random, "undirected" mutations feed the evolutionary process.)

The theory justifies the use of the idea of undirectedness firstly by claiming that direction is not necessary to account for biology, but at the same time, hides behind the claim that "chance does not require any explanation". Therefore, it makes a teleological argument, without any evidence.

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. Do you dispute that mutations occur randomly or you dispute that natural selection of favorable mutations is a directed process?

sinequanon:


Chief, you are repeating some basic stuff that nobody is arguing about, but your earlier incorrect supposition that you could hydrolyze protein with HCL and an enzyme alone actually demonstrates the problem nicely. Water HAS TO BE INVOLVED as per the definition I gave.

Look bro, just tell me what your area of study is, so I can know how to address this matter. I still maintain, you only need HCL and Pepsin to digest protein in the stomach. There's no water involved. And don't even think water is involved because HCL is a liquid.

sinequanon:

The word "involved" covers "reactant" and ALL other situations.

This is science, the word involved may have been involved when you are looking at the English, but with Chemically and Biochemically related syntax, it is very inappropriate. Reactants, products, etc are more appropriate for chemical reaction description than "involve"

sinequanon:

I am not. You are repeating basic things that nobody is arguing about, without acknowledging that your own terminology has led you astray into believing that you can hydrolyze protein with HCL and an enzyme alone.

It's not my terminology, please do some research and tell me where water is needed for the digestion of proteins in the stomach. Please note that Acid is a solution, it doesn't mean it contains water.

In a solution of acid, OH & H ions are loosely connected by other forces, while in water, OH and H are covalently bonded together. This makes an acidic solution different from water.

Also, An acid is regarded as an aqueous solution, while water is a liquid. So acids do not contain water, it only contains OH, H ions. Don't be mistaken

sinequanon:

Chief, is it anti-knowledge for me to ignore this truism? (While you ignore the substantive point)

Truism as per the use in sciences? There's nothing as truism where our discussion is concerned. WQe are talking about sciences here. Not just English.

Graycoder:


It could be more than millions if you consider evolution. 600 years for one bond of protein that contains 10 thousand bonds and an organism that contains 1000 proteins.

That's 600 X 10000 X 1000 = 6 billion years for an organism to melt back into amino acids.

Forgive my ignorant question, chemistry isn't my forte. But is this rate not affected by the concentration of water?

sinequanon:


Sir, your argument is not flowing logically.

You claim that "HCL (a gas at room temperature) and Pepsin ALONE can hydrolyze protein."

Am I the one who is not being logical here or you are the one arguing straw man?

1. Your statement which brought up the HCL and Pepsin for the digestion of proteins was "I can't even decipher what you have written. Hydrolysis of proteins happen in the body all the time. It involves water, acid and enzymes."

- Now, I responded by saying this only happens in the stomach. Why bring up gaseous state argument for HCL?
(a) Please, tell us, is the HCL in the stomach a gas or in the gaseous state or a solution?
(b)Tell us, is the stomach's temperature the same as room temperature?

I must say, sir, your inability to decipher is really a huge setback

sinequanon:

Then you ask for a link that says water is "involved in the digestion of protein". There is no reason for any article to make such a vague statement.

So you know it is vague, but you made it anyway.

sinequanon:

Why have you suddenly switched from "hydrolysis" to "digestion"? The involvement of water in hydrolysis is as per the definition I gave you.

Hydrolysis is a reaction that breaks down a molecule using the elements of water.

You want a link to this fact?

Digestion is a hydrolytic process. This is why I have been hammering your field of study. You can't keep talking about the things you have little or no knowledge about.

I want you to read this quote, maybe you'll catch a clue that hydrolysis is not just about water and it doesn't happen to all compounds or molecules too.

"Hydrolyzed protein is a protein that has been hydrolyzed or broken down into its component amino acids. While there are many means of achieving this, two of the most common methods are prolonged boiling in a strong acid (acid-HVP) or strong base or using an enzyme such as pancreatic protease to simulate the naturally occurring hydrolytic process"

Please show me where it is written that water hydrolyzed the protein. They said the most common methods of hydrolyzing protein to boil it in Strong acids or bases. Did you see water there? Still, note that acids don't contain water

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolyzed_protein

AgentOfAllah:


Forgive my ignorant question, chemistry isn't my forte. But is this rate not affected by the concentration of water?

What I calculated is the number of years it would take water to hydrolyze all the proteins of a typical animal. And obviously, it is impossible for any organism to remain in water for 6 billion years. It will reproduce, move around and die even before one bond from one protein is broken. These FACTS provided by pro creationists has however proved that evolution is possible.

AgentOfAllah:


I'm not sure I understand your meaning. Do you dispute that mutations occur randomly or you dispute that natural selection of favorable mutations is a directed process?

"Natural selection of favorable mutations is a directed process" is not a claim made by scientists.

I have said that scientists have provided no evidence that "mutations are undirected".