Origin of Translation

quote:

---

All of these had to be dependently and coordinately evolved slowly over millenia with continous selection pressure on the non- functioning intermediate systems in order for a single fully functional, selectively useful protein to be generated.

---

Why would they have to be non-functioning in those intermediate steps? It is very possible for a one mutation to result in new protein function. This new function, through further mutation, could become more specific and more active over time, but still be functional from the very outset.

quote:

---

It is possible to "imagine" simplified versions of the system in which protein products were all much simpler and therefore, chaparonins, for example, would be redundant. However, there is no evidence that such simple systems existed or could have existed.

---

By chaparonins do you mean chaperone proteins? Post translational modification is also a viable evolutionary mechanism that might have been important in early life.Next, there is no doubt that simpler systems COULD HAVE existed. Whether or not they did is devoid of evidence due to the fact that proteins and DNA don't fossilize. So we are left with what we observe today. We know that mutations can lead to novel proteins, increases in specificty, and increases in enzyme function. Therefore, we know that simpler proteins COULD HAVE been refined through mutation and natural selection over time resulting in the well oiled machine that is RNA translation.

quote:

---

But! perhaps we are looking at the artwork of a masterful designer who saw the whole system and designed all the parts whose specific functions I have not defined rigorously. So we find ourselves staring at these glorious diagrams- simplifications of the actual machines. Hmmm is this a fortuitous series of accidents or the work of a superior Designer?

---

The difference between evolution and supernatural explanations is that the mechanisms of evolution can be tested. As I stated before, we can observe the capabilities of mutation and natural selection, and we can test those mechanisms as well. No one has ever observed a supernatural deity designing anything in biology, nor is it possible to test the mechanisms of supernatural design. Evolution is not taken on faith, but on the evidenciary support of empirical data and the testing of hypotheses. A supernatural deity/designer rests solely on religious faith and is not testable nor observable.

quote:

---

Faith is critical to either of these two interpretations.

---

Absolutely false. There is no faith involved in the sciences, except in the metaphysical underpinnings of objective observations. Every theory put forth has to be testable and BASED on observations. This is the opposite of what is found with a supernatural designer theory, where the theory is untestable and the evidence is subjective.

quote:

---

Or, more determinantly, which of these two interpretations do you want to believe in, for that is where your intellect will go to brouse!

---

I trust in the view that can be tested by objective data and the view that is based on testable theories.

quote:

---

I don't see the difference. All we can establish for either case is the POSSIBILITY of it happening.

​

Intelligent design is governed only by the rules of logic; chemical ambiogenesis is ruled by chemistry. You go on to argue (and I think convincingly) that the rules of chemistry say that ambiogenesis IS POSSIBLE.

---

I would argue that ID is governed by philosophy, not logical scientific arguments. Hopefully I can make this clear.Abiogenesis is governed by chemistry. The rules of chemistry can be tested and checked. We can directly test whether certain pathways are possible through natural means. If we are able to produce life through natural mechanisms in the lab, then this is a very possible pathway for life to arise on an early Earth. However, we can't know whether or not this pathway occured on Earth because that evidence has long since been destroyed.Now, let's move to ID. ID is a philosophical/theological argument. It states that a Designer should be assumed without evidence. This is in stark contrast to abiogenesis, where the active mechanisms can be observed, tested, and need not be assumed. This is the problem with ID, it requires one to assume that a Designer exists without evidence and without testing. This is why abiogenesis is the better scientific theory and ID is incapable of making headway in scientific circles.There is no faith needed in abiogenesis. The mechanisms are there for everyone to touch, feel, manipulate, and test. ID does require faith in that the Designer has to be assumed to exist on faith alone. The Designer can not be tested, touched, manipulated, etc. Also, theories in abiogenesis are inherently tentative. They are not held as absolute truths but ideas that are continually tested and modified if necessary. This is the opposite of ID "theory" in that the Designer can not be questioned and assumed to be "true" without one ounce of tentativity. Without a Designer, what do we need ID theory for?

quote:

---

I don't think we should just wash this fact away by saying many people who believe in intelligent design believe in inconsistent stories.

---

No, they all believe in the same inconsistent storie, that a Designer is self evident and should be assumed to exist without any evidence whatsoever.

quote:

---

This would be completely wrong. ID contains logical fallacies incompatible with good philosophy.

---

C'mon, I was trying to be generous. I only said that ID was governed by philosophy, not that it was consistent with philosophical logic.

quote:

---

We weren't there to see it happen so our theory of how it did happen is taken on faith that it actually happened that way regardless of whether or not we can re-test our theory's.

---

There are people on death row today that were put there without an eyewitness to the crime. Can you guess what type of evidence convicted them? Scientific evidence devoid of faith. Are they there because of faith? Absolutely not. They are there because the scientific method is a trustworthy method of determing what happened in the past even if there was no one there to witness it. On one hand science is trustworthy enough to put people to death, and in the next moment (according to creationists) it is totally untrustworthy. If science is totally based on faith and not trustworthy, then there are a lot of prisoners that should be set free.

quote:

---

An excellent argument, however, in my opinion flawed. In such cases there is concrete evidences that point toward the murderer. Such as DNA or semen matching. It links man and chimp in the same way that DNA methods can match father and son, mother and daughter, distant ancestor and living descendant.

---

There is concrete DNA matching that supports a common ancestor between chimps and humans, by the very same methodologies and technology. One of those pieces of evidence is endogenous retroviral insertions (abbrev. ERV, or in humans as HERV).

quote:

---

Now as far as the case for evolution goes there isn't clear cut, exact, evidence that proves evolution to be true. This is shown obviously by this website in the fact that there is debate over the issue. It isn't as clear cut.

---

You will notice that scientists are not arguing with one another over whether evolution is accurate or not. The only argument is between scientists and those who reject evolution because of religious reasons. You don't need to answer this, but ask yourself if you believe evolution is false because it has been falsified or because you don't want to share a common ancestor with any other animal on Earth.

quote:

---

I also just came across this excellent interview between Dr. Gary Habermass, philosophy professor at Liberty University, and professor Antony Flew, a long time leading philosophical atheist that has turned to theism. There are some excellent points but I will simply point out one reply.

---

In science, someone's opinion means nothing unless the opinion is based on sound evidence. This seems to be a rampant problem amongst the anti-evolution camp, using opinion as data, and quotes as evidence. Evidence is evidence, not some philosophy professor's opinion.

quote:

---

DNA, in the case of the topic of this thread translation, in my estimation points much more towards design than evolution. While there has been theories and guesses there has been no clear cut answer to the origin of DNA and furthermore there hasn't even been an appropriate answer to the origin of translation.

---

What scientific evidence do we have that a designer existed when life arose on earth? None. Therefore, ID fails at the very beginning, since the first premise, the existence of a designer, is not evidenced. What we do have are natural mechanisms which we can test today. These are evidenced and may very well be capable of producing life on their own.

quote:

---

While there has been theories and guesses there has been no clear cut answer to the origin of DNA and furthermore there hasn't even been an appropriate answer to the origin of translation.

---

Stating the obvious, we will never know what the earliest life on earth looked like since they did not leave fossils. However, if life can arise through natural processes, we really don't need a designer to interfere in the process. It amazes me at times that Christians don't realize that ID actually constrains God, confines His creative power into something Man can accept. Why couldn't God create the natural laws knowing that they will, by themselves, result in intelligent life? Because Man wants to feel special, and coming about by such mechanisms injures Man's pride. Man wants to tell God how He created instead of letting the creation tell Man how He created. Evolution is just that, the study of the Creation.