|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How does Complexity demonstrate Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Nevertheless, just for argument sake I'm still willing to stick with yxifix's argument that it's just simply impossible for life to come from a few proteins and RNA strands to where we are today. I think most supporters of RNA-to-life abiogenesis would agree that it is quite a leap, but would disagree with "impossible" in favor of "improbable". However, if we are able to deduce that it happened, the probability does not matter.
But what I need now from yxifix is positive, verifiable, observable, and falsifiable evidence of his alternative theory of an Intelligent Designer starting it all. I'd like to see any 'real' evidence from yxifix also, since he takes such a firm stance. Unfortunately I've only seen argument by analogy, followed by the false logic of not-evolution-therefore-intelligent-design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
This is a description of a modern cell with several billion years of evolutionary change behind it. However, there are various organisms today that are quite successful without having any dna. For example, virus are essentially self replicating rna strands (this isn't exactly accurate, but there structure is quite close to rna single strand formation, not the double helix form of dna.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5844 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
A couple of things before I start, by way of correction and clarification:
The mRNA passes through the pores in the nuclear membrane, and makes its way to the part of the cell where proteins are made, called the rough endoplasmic reticulum (ER). This is talking about eukaryotic cells and certainly has little to do with the simple cell-like start to life. It is also quite inaccurate: mRNA does not make its' way to the ER, and the ER is not where all proteins are made. The same goes to your reference to the nucleus - its' a eukaryotic feature.
ribosome - Protein-making factory of the cell. Made of protein and RNA, ribosomes act as a type of scaffold to coordinate the reading of the DNA code with adding new amino acids to the translated protein chain I think I need to clarify something I said earlier. The active site of the ribosome, where the peptide bond between two amino acids is formed (ie the business end of the ribosome) is mainly made up of rRNA. How it is catalysed is a bit unclear, but what is clear is that rRNA plays a major role in the primary function of the ribosome. A situation where solely RNA could perform this catalysis is not unimaginable by any means. With this in mind I'd like to add another term to your list: Ribozyme: a strand of RNA with enzymatic activity. Now onto the main thrust of your argument:
RNA can't be created without already existing DNA and DNA can't be created without already existing RNA. That was simple. You must agree. You're making a common creationist mistake by comparing modern (and therefore highly evolved) life with early, "proto-life". Early life was, almost by definition, simple, crude and imperfect. It didn't have to be perfect though, just able to reach what we have now in small steps. For example, all life now (with the possible exception of RNA viruses - if you count viruses as being 'alive') is based on DNA being the storage molecule, but why did this have to be the case as life began? DNA scores over RNA in many ways as a store of base sequences, but they are very similar molecules, and RNA could quite easily started out as the storage medium, only to be replaced by the its' more stable cousin. After all, whats an -OH group between molecules? RNA molecules, as P.S. rightly points out, have been shown to be capable of self-replication. Synthetic RNA strands have even been shown to replicate other RNA molecules independently of DNA or protein. Again, no code required, just the laws of physics, and selective pressures. Which brings me back, as ever, to the 'universal' genetic code: Even the genetic code didn't have to pop into existance in its' entirety with the codons for all 20 amino acids intact. One paper I read recently suggested that a 'proto-code' of just 5 or 6 amino acids would be enough to start life off on the protein road. These amino acids tend to be the most abundant in the Miller primordial soup, all have simple codons (consisting of mostly C's and G's) and are known to be important in the formation of secondary structure in proteins (especially in beta-sheet motifs). Other amino acids with more complex codons, and longer biosynthetic pathways could be integrated at a later time-frame. This possible step-wise generation of the genetic code suggests to me that a designer is not required. And finally, regarding your assertion that
Computer = a cell. Program = DNA code is enough to show that a computer and the origins of life are analogous: What part of the computer reperesents the replicating, uncoding molecule such as RNA? Which particular bits are the free floating amino acids, or the lipid membranes? In other words, how exactly can you equate a man-made computer with a primordial soup, the contents and conditions of which we can only make vague guesses at? By the time you've actually made a good stab at evening it up, you end up with something that is nothing like a computer, and so the analogy is meaningless. And before you reply remember that nobody is saying that the origin of life, as I am describing it, is a cast iron fact. We're just saying that it is possible. This message has been edited by Ooook!, 08-18-2004 06:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
...all have simple codons (consisting of only C's and G's)... more complex codons, and longer biosynthetic pathways could be integrated at a later time-frame. Ooook! - the "only C's and G's" idea is potentially exciting in a biochemical sense. Since C-G bonds are inherently more stable than A-T bonds, they could have acted to "stabilize" the relatively labile RNA (vs. DNA). Perhaps the A's and T's were a post-DNA expansion of repertoire, within the allowance of DNA stability? Is the reference available on-line?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5844 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
Here's the pubmed abstract
As with most theoretical stuff, it gets a bit confusing in parts (well it does for this lowly cell biologist) but I think I read it correctly. The one bit that I have misread (and will go and correct on my previous message) is that the early codons (for the Miller aas) were GC rich, although not exclusively GC. Hope this is helpful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Thanks... the hypothesis looks quite interesting, I'll have to see what I think of the details when I have some time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: We are talking about: 1. generation of information within the genome through mutation and natural selection (nylon bug). 2. the fallacy of comparing spontaneous generation with abiogenesis. Pasteur's experiment falsified spontaneous generation but it didn't falsify abiogenesis. Until this is understood your posts are nothing but demagogy.
quote: I already proved it. The Casimir effect proves spontaneous generation of information through quantum fluctuations. All information found in nature is found at the atomic level. The first living system was a result of the information stored in the spontaneously generated matter from a quantum fluctuation. QED
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
MisterOpus writes:
All 3 of those "proofs" you've given clearly demonstrate the logical fallacy of argument from ignoranceYou cannot explain to me the reason is because it's just too unlikely for a random event to happen, because I'm willing to forego the argument from ignorance fallacy this is creating and agree with you here for the moment. OK, if we give computer time 5000000 billion years.... is it possible it will do any operation itself without a program?Or have I to use all computers in the world to state it is a proof? Loudmouth writes: the fallacy of comparing spontaneous generation with abiogenesis. Pasteur's experiment falsified spontaneous generation but it didn't falsify abiogenesis. Until this is understood your posts are nothing but demagogy. I was always talking about sponteaneous generation.... so what are you talking about demagogy? If I knew you don't know difference why would I not tell you? Could I have any reason??? You clearly don't know what demagogy means.... Nevermind..... These are just examples...I have decided not to repeat one thing in discussion with the same person again and again.. or each 2 days new person appears in the forum and asking about a proof and then is saying it is not a proof without proper explanation etc etc From now on I'm interested only in serious discussion... (so far only Ooook and Percy look ok) otherwise it is really wasting of my time (do not forget, I've been discussion with all of you, you are discussing just with me) So lets go to discuss with them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Hi Ooook,
Ooook writes:
RNA molecules, as P.S. rightly points out, have been shown to be capable of self-replication. This possible step-wise generation of the genetic code suggests to me that a designer is not required. Very nice try. 1. First of all we can surely rule out DNA molecule because of proteins needed 2. RNA -> You are saying a designer is not required... but I'm saying a designer is required. You must surely know the process of creation of RNA molecule. Could you describe it please?So in order to continue in discussion you have to accept that intelligence was needed to create such molekule. Then we can carry on: 3. You have to show what is used when this enzymatic RNA is replicating itself. Eg. where is a template needed. You must surely know how each genetic replication works. 4. You have to show how can be RNA molecule able to 'live' and 'reproduce' itself in prebiotic conditions. These are just some questions needed to answer before we proceed....
And finally, regarding your assertion that
Computer = a cell. Program = DNA code is enough to show that a computer and the origins of life are analogous: What part of the computer reperesents the replicating, uncoding molecule such as RNA? Which particular bits are the free floating amino acids, or the lipid membranes? In other words, how exactly can you equate a man-made computer with a primordial soup, the contents and conditions of which we can only make vague guesses at? By the time you've actually made a good stab at evening it up, you end up with something that is nothing like a computer, and so the analogy is meaningless. First of all small misunderstaingComputer = a cell. Program = genetic code. Well... we can apply also unicode programs for example for Chinese letters if you like, created 'amino acids' would be Chinese letters, I guess? But this really is not important. Primordial soup example:Well... This computer analogy means that without an intelligence there would be nothing in this world -> only an intelligence can create a program. As I said before, even an atom is already a "computer" which carries a "program" itself. That (result of experiment) was a proof that there had to be an 'intelligence' when the world was created. -> and that's why some people answered "Yes, to prove it you have to try each computer on the world" => nonsense. But nevermind. Then it can be applied easily to macroevolution (eg if there is not already existing DNA code for lungs, no lungs can be created and on the contrary), mutations are just fantasy (I will explain in OriginofLife forum), so it is a proof against evolution itself as well. And before you reply remember that nobody is saying that the origin of life, as I am describing it, is a cast iron fact. We're just saying that it is possible. Yes, but lets say the truth.... It is the only option which can be for you acceptable (moral problem).Then also -> if a result of computer experiment is not an evidence, then everybody who says that, can't say "evolution is based on evidence". You must agree. And that is the paradox where both beliefs meet together for that person who says that (If he/she really means it so, of course, otherwise he/she is a hypocrite).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
2. RNA -> You are saying a designer is not required... but I'm saying a designer is required. You must surely know the process of creation of RNA molecule. Could you describe it please? So in order to continue in discussion you have to accept that intelligence was needed to create such molekule. Then we can carry on: Why? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Lets wait for Oook's answer firstly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Lets wait for Oook's answer firstly. Why? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Again, you are describing RNA/DNA/protein relationships at the cellular biology level, where they are, indeed complex. At the biochemical level they are quite simple...
You have to show what is used when this enzymatic RNA is replicating itself. Eg. where is a template needed. You must surely know how each genetic replication works. Easy. (Also, the same RNA sequence is the template and enzyme.) The first paper (I believe) on self-replicating RNA. A recent paper describing an RNA capable of synthesizing nucleotides (the building blocks of the RNA strand). Another paper describing an RNA that acts as a polymerase, efficiently and accurately copying another RNA strand. No protein or DNA needed.
RNA -> You are saying a designer is not required... but I'm saying a designer is required. You must surely know the process of creation of RNA molecule. Could you describe it please? So in order to continue in discussion you have to accept that intelligence was needed to create such molekule. Then we can carry on: This is what is really exciting! The experiments above created the enzymatic RNAs capable of replicating RNA without designing them. Instead, they made enormous libraries of short RNAs of random sequence, and then simple selected (sound familiar?) those with enzymatic activity. They did NOT design the sequence, they simply filtered out the ones without activity. Also, please address my points in my message #284, which you have ignored twice now, presumably because you have no way to refute them (consider this a challenge). However, since you continue to use your computer experiment as proof, after I've given you a scenario to falsify it twice, I'll repeat the scenario here (for the third time): But what if an electromagnetic disturbance scrambled the hard drive, accidentally creating binary code for a small computer virus, which subsequently replicates, filling the hard drive with copies of itself, and thus information and activity? Thanks in advance for your reply to these points.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5844 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
Hello again,
I'll try and tackle your questions first (although I must say that P.S. has given very good replies to them already), and then try and explain why your computer analogy still doesn't hold primordial soup. Remember that no-one is saying that early life was anything like as complex a even the simplest modern bacteria, and was more akin to a fatty sack with a collection of replicating molecules in it.
1. First of all we can surely rule out DNA molecule because of proteins needed Why do you say that? Why couldn't ribozymes have done the job? RNA based enzymes are still used in replicating DNA at the telomeres of chromosomes for example. As I have pointed out before, they have been shown to have a wide variety of functions. I remember being quite blown away in a lecture by Tom Cech a few years ago. Not only was he an excellent speaker, his subject matter was fascinating. He was showing X-ray crystal structures of Ribozymes and I was amazed at how like the protein models they were, with clear active sites and quite complex structures. All this without a genetic code.
2. RNA -> You are saying a designer is not required... but I'm saying a designer is required. You must surely know the process of creation of RNA molecule. Could you describe it please? So in order to continue in discussion you have to accept that intelligence was needed to create such molekule. Then we can carry on: In modern bacteria, protein based polymerases read off RNA transcripts from a DNA template. That's not what I'm saying though. Life could have got started by random RNA polymerisation followed by selection, pretty much as P.S. described it. Just because we do not know exactly what kind of conditions could have existed on a pre-biotic earth for this to happen does not mean you can insert a designer into the gap in our knowledge.
3. You have to show what is used when this enzymatic RNA is replicating itself. Eg. where is a template needed. You must surely know how each genetic replication works Yet again P.S. beat me to the punch again (damn these time-zones). The template for the RNA is the RNA molecule itself, lab experiments have shown this to be the case.
4. You have to show how can be RNA molecule able to 'live' and 'reproduce' itself in prebiotic conditions. God of the gaps again, I'm afraid. Just because we can't show something, doesn't mean it can't happen. So, why isn't your computer a decent explaination?
First of all small misunderstaing Computer = a cell. Program = genetic code. Well... we can apply also unicode programs for example for Chinese letters if you like, created 'amino acids' would be Chinese letters, I guess? But this really is not important I think this is the crux of people's objections to your insistance to argue by analogy. It is extremely important for the two examples to be directly comparable, especially if you insist on using it as your main arguement. My request for the computer equivilent of the sack of RNA is not just a whim on my part, it is vital for your comparisen to stand up to scrutiny. Otherwise, all you are proving is that computers can't program themselves.
Yes, but lets say the truth.... It is the only option which can be for you acceptable (moral problem). Then also -> if a result of computer experiment is not an evidence, then everybody who says that, can't say "evolution is based on evidence". You must agree. And that is the paradox where both beliefs meet together for that person who says that (If he/she really means it so, of course, otherwise he/she is a hypocrite). The truth is - I don't know the truth. You are saying that it would be absolutely impossible for the complexity of the DNA code to have evolved by chance and I am simply presenting a plausible solution based on evidence, which you have not disproved. Its' not hypocritical at all, the inability to exactly reproduce the 'start of life' in a lab does not devalue the hoards of other supporting evidence for evolution.
Then it can be applied easily to macroevolution (eg if there is not already existing DNA code for lungs, no lungs can be created and on the contrary), mutations are just fantasy (I will explain in OriginofLife forum), so it is a proof against evolution itself as well I might pop over there if I have time and try and tackle you on this as well. This is another one of my bugbears. Ta ta for now
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5844 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
Why? Too right, I'm lousy at replying promtly
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024