Re: Molecular biology ... a crash course or a little help?
- From: "Scooter the Mighty" <Greyguy3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Dec 2005 21:20:09 -0800
Alexander wrote:
> Hi guys ... having lumbered myself with a strange argument with an
> ID'er over on Yahoo I currently have no response to some claims due to
> my woeful lack of knowledge - something I'm sticking my hand up to but
> hey, I'm willing to be educated.
>
> I suspect some of the below are knowledge 'boundary' issues - that we
> simply don't know. It seems impossible to get said ID proponents to
> see that this is not actual evidence of an 'intelligence' however.
> It's being put forward for a definitive evidence of the failure of
> evolution (not surprsing I know)
>
> There's a lot here so I appreciate if people don't have the
> time/inclination, but it would be an education for me if anyone has any
> useful links or relevant pointers.
>
> Also the term IC is being thrown around a lot. I suspect it's being
> used in double fashion - one as Behe intended, to indicate an
> organ/structure that has no naturalistic explanation and also as a
> system that is 'irreducible' in the sense that said organ/structure
> will fail should an element be removed (but that naturalistic
> explanations for why that organ exists are around - the building of an
> 'archway' analogy). Shoot me down in flames as you please
>
> Thanks
>
> The arguments:
>
> Begin with nucleic acids and note that their
> > > > selective value is not dependent on their chemical
> > > > composition but rather on their encoding
> > > properties.
> > > > What natural cause would produce a sequentially
> > > > functional arrangement of nucleotides in a
> > > prebiotic
> > > > soup and how would the encoded information be
> > > > translated to functional proteins?
In the first place, they're asking you to explain abiogenesis, not
evolution. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with prebiotic soup.
It is exlusively post-biotic.
Secondly, I don't think anyone knows how life arose. It was an
extremely long time ago and molecules don't fossilize. Not knowing
doesn't mean that by default we assume it's God who was responsible.
> This is followed up with:
>
> I'll add a follow-up. What properties of of
> > nucleic acids lead you to believe that their synthesis
> > in a prebiotic soup would generate information and an
> > encoding convention assuming the synthesis is an
> > environmentally viable possibility?
>
The questioner is assuming that the first life form used a
DNA->RNA->Protein central dogma. Ask him what his evidence that this
was the case is. Why not autocatayltic RNA, which evolved to do some
manipulation of protein, which evolved to include DNA as part of it's
life cycle, and so forth until we have the system used by most life
forms today?
>
> > >Can you really tell me that the entire veracity of ID
> > rests
> > exclusively on whether we can currently demonstrate
> > (or not) the
> > origins of the bacterial flagellum?
> >
> > It does not. You can demonstrate some ability
> > to think on your feet and explain how the prokaryotic
> > IC transcription and translation function evolved.
>
> I'm not sure what exactly he's asking for here. I can't imagine any
> response provided would satisfy him though
>
His wording isn't very clear and I'd guess he's parrotting something
he's heard elsewhere.
He's asking how the system of using DNA to store and use genetic
information came about. I don't think anyone knows the answer to this
question, as again it happened a freaking long time ago and molecules
don't fossilize. But so what? We will never know everything there is
to know about the evolution of every biological system. How does that
provide evidence for ID? Because this clown can't imagine how it
happened, it couldn't have happened naturally? His failure of
imagination is not a problem for evolution.
Tell him to give you some actual positive evidence of ID. PIcking nits
with evolution doesn't work, because ID isn't the only other option.
>
> A better example of an
> > irreducibly
> > > complex system that is problematic for a theory
> > based
> > > on gradual, accumulated, selective changes are the
> > > functions necessary for protein synthesis. Before a
> > > protein becomes functional the DNA encoding it must
> > be
> > > transcribed and the resulting mRNA then translated.
> > > Numerous cellular components are involved in the
> > > process including tRNA, ribosomes and aminoacyl
> > > synthetases. A ready supply of amino acids is
> > needed
> > > some of which are synthesized in metabolic pathways
> > > which are dependent on encoded enzymes. This is not
> > a
> > > system that lends itself to a Darwinian natural
> > > selection process.
> >
> > >You'll have to clarify for me why this does not lend
> > itself well to selection/mutation.
> >
> > Since you have repeatedly asserted evolution
> > scientifically explains how systems came to be I'm
> > asking you how this specific one came about.
>
> The tendency for DNA helices to form supercoils
> > is inherent to the structure; i.e. it stems from
> > natural causes. Supercoils form when the DNA strands
> > are separated. The strands must separate to enable
> > both protein synthesis and the replication of both DNA
> > and the cell containing the DNA. A complex of about
> > 40 proteins enable organisms to keep supercoiling in
> > check through processes that go beyond the scope of
> > this thread. Their respective encoding genes are
> > found in the DNA itself. How did such an irreducible
> > complex system gradually evolve?
.
- References:
- Molecular biology ... a crash course or a little help?
- From: Alexander
- Molecular biology ... a crash course or a little help?
- Prev by Date: Re: Lamarckian Darwinist Speculation?"
- Next by Date: Re: OT: Subjective Ontology?
- Previous by thread: Re: Molecular biology ... a crash course or a little help?
- Next by thread: Re: Molecular biology ... a crash course or a little help?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
