Origin of Translation

I will not go into exact details of translation. But if we look at translation what is specifically needed:
- the ribosome
- the message
- the initiating factors
- the elongating factors
- the energy transfer system
- the tRNA's
- the amino acids
- the chaparonins
- the coding system
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. 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.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?Faith is critical to either of these two interpretations. So the next question becomes: Where is it more rational to lodge my faith? Looking at the final product, which is more plausible? Or, more determinantly, which of these two interpretations do you want to believe in, for that is where your intellect will go to brouse!

Sorry about that. I guess maybe I'm in too much of a rush to get a topic out there. Sorry again

Also the other 2 topics you I proposed can be closed. I've already gone through the site and found related threads that address the topic and have posted there. I don't see any reason to start another.But as far as this post goes, what exactly is wrong with it? In my other proposed topics, they'd already been discussed quite thoroughly. You suggested that I read through the threads and take a new angle on it. As for this topic, I've not found a ton of conversation on this topic. Maybe that's my fault. If you could specifically point out problems, I'd be glad to try and edit it. Thanks

quote:

---

There's much to discover about the origin of life. Why can't "I don't know yet" be an appropriate answer to that question?

---

Simply because its never good enough for me. A hundred years ago, the Bible was discredited because the civilization of the Hittites could never be confirmed. We didn't know where their archaeological remains were, and it was taken as the Bible is false. Why wasn't it good enough then, that we simply hadn't found it yet? Eventually, the civilization was discovered in northern Canaan.

quote:

---

The one that is correct. I, for one, do not allow what I want to be true to affect my conception of what is true, and I don't understand why a rational person would think otherwise. What does it matter which one of those interpretations we want to be true?

---

Then you are one of the very very very select few. The rest of us our heavily influenced by our world view. Let's be honest, the fact that both creationists and evolutionists look at the exact same evidence and two completely different ideas are created lends credence to this statement unfortunately. I'll equate it this way. Could an athetis entertaing the question "Did God create?" No, as soon as they allow it as a question, they are no longer atheist. So as an atheist scientist looking at the fossils and the world around him, no matter what evidence he finds he will never see it as evidence for creation.

quote:

---

But science isn't a place for faith, and the origin of life is not a question of faith

---

I'm going to have to disagree, specifically about the origin of life. All the fossils we have, all the experiments we do to test possibilities about the origin of life are in the present. Everything exists in the present. The origin of life cannot be directly tested using the scientific method. No one was there to see it, record it, or re-tell it. You must rely on faith that your re-creations of the origin of life are in fact how life began.

quote:

---

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.

---

I'm not saying that all science is based on faith. But when it comes to origins and past events in which there was no recording of data, we are relying on faith regardless of your interpretationg as mentioned in the above post. 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. We will never know for sure how it happened in the past. That is where faith comes in

quote:

---

No one has ever observed a supernatural deity designing anything in biology, nor is it possible to test the mechanisms of supernatural design.

---

Did you see the guy that made your car? Like the rest of us probably not. But I'll put a million dollars down that you believe that somebody did in fact build your car. You believe it even though you did not see it. The same concept can be placed with an ID. Now while this may not be in biological terms it is still relevant. And as far as not seeing supernatural design, well that would depend on your philosophy. If your a materialist then no, if your a creationist yes. I see God's hand in biology every day. It's simply a matter of philosophy.

quote:

---

We have many complex chemicals, we have many complex environments, and we have a definite sign that life exists. Thus chemicals and environments interacted in some way to form life.

---

The fact that we have complex environments, complex chemicals, and definite sign of life, in no way asserts that the chemicals and the environment interacted in some way to form life. You don't walk into an empty workshop, see a fully made cabinet, some tools, wood, and assume that the tools and wood randomly created the cabinet. You assume that it was designed and built by somebody.

quote:

---

I would argue that ID is governed by philosophy

---

I'll completely agree to this point. However, I believe that in the same light, evolution is governed by the philosophy of materialism.

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

There is no faith needed in abiogenesis. The mechanisms are there for everyone to touch, feel, manipulate, and test.

---

As I've mentioned in pretty much all of my replies this is a fallacy. Sure you can test, see, feel, re-test, re-see, re-feel all your mechanisms from the lab. But does that mean that is how it happened in the past? No! You take it on faith that this is how it happened and you take it on faith that there was no creator there to start it all. We weren't there. There is no record of it, so it is based on faith!!! This extends past origins even into evolution itself. The unrecorded past is exactly that unrecorded. Evolutionists can make up schemes and make experiments about how life may have evolved, but in the end there is no concrete data to support it. Therefore, the evolution of life has to be taken on faith that your ideas and theories are correct. Evolution is faith based whether your willing to see it or not. The difference between you and I is simple. I believe there was somone that saw it all and revealed what happened to mankind in the Bible. You have your truth and I have mine. But in my truth, I have an eyewitness account.Sorry that these last few posts have been somewhat redundant on my part. But I leave for thanksgiving break from school, and I wanted to reply to the posts before I left since I won't be able to reply over the next week. I've also rushed to get these posts out and in doing so may have been unclear, and have not supported my points well enough. Please forgive me in this regard, and hopefully when I return I might be able to add to these posts.

quote:

---

We never infer design from the object. It's not possible. We infer design because we observe designers.

---

Point taken. I see how these analogies don't exactly fit. But I still hold to the point of all of my posts. Evolution, particularly when concernec with origins requires faith.This message has been edited by jjburklo, 11-19-2004 12:03 AM

quote:

---

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.

---

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. The evidence is hardcut, clear. And if you talk to any lawyer or judge, trying to prove guilt purely on forensic data and such is extremely extremely hard. 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. There is a huge difference in this analogyI 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. When explaining how he came to theism he stated that it was not ontological or moral arguments that brought him to the belief in a God, in fact he states that he was quite unimpressed by these arguments, but rather only the scientific forms of teleology.

quote:

---

FLEW: I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.

---

quote:

---

FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

---

I personally love this last quote because it pertains to the topic of this thread. 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.In any case the interview is excellent, and has some excellent incites. Flew is obviously not a Christian and has not subscribed himself to any sort of religion. At the time he does not believe in revelation but is open to it. Here's the link Interview with atheist turned theist Antony Flew

quote:

---

Getting back to your a posteriori reasoning about autos. If you had a car that kept breaking down all the time, what would be your opinion of the Designer? Humans have to nurse a poorly-designed system through life, a system that not only becomes disabled through poor design,relies on a fixed minimum of resources to avoid death in minutes,hours,days, but, also has to be kept in good condition to resist attacks by bacteria designed by the Creator-of-all-things to destroy the human system. With limited self-repair, wouldn`t you think an Intelligent Designer would do a better job of his Supreme Creation? Only a person locked into a religious view would accept the idea of a benevolent Creator with the constant evidence of faulty design around us.

---

No not at all. When Adam sinned the entire human race was cursed. And as time goes on the degression of mankind will continue due to continual sin. Not until God establishes his kingdom on earth will we be perfect. It's no surprise to me at all. I thank God everyday that we are finite. That we are able to die. The moment Adam sinned God as a perfect being was forced to seperate himself from us. It is because of the curse that eventually, through the death and resurrection of Christ that I can have a personal communion with my creator and everlasting life. Without the curse mankind would be left here on earth forever seperated from God, something I would not wish upon anyone. But it is because of the curse that we are able to be redeemed.Regardless of our imperfections, there is still a complexity about humans, specifically in their DNA, that cannot be accounted for by evolution. To have everything work in the precise manner that it does, even from a cosmological standpoint, the earth is to perfectly set up to have happened by random chance. To expect random mutation to have created the complexity of life and the universe we see today is mind boggling to me.

sorry posted it twice by accidentThis message has been edited by jjburklo, 12-11-2004 12:15 AM

quote:

---

And the car analogy?

---

I've already said that I admit my original analogies have holes.

quote:

---

You are, of course, right that there is no definitive answer to the origin of DNA. There is a gap in our knowledge here. That is the sum total of the argument for design at this point: there is a gap therefore god did it. This seems to me to be weak theology.

---

I'd understand your frustration to this point if it was how I conveyed it. This was my statement

quote:

---

DNA, in the case of the topic of this thread translation, in my estimation points much more towards design than evolution.

---

My argument was not that since evolution doesn't have an answer then it must be God, it was that the characteristics of DNA point more towards design. The intricacies of DNA and its replication, translation, etc are so complex and wonderful that it seems to be designed rather then to have happened by random chance. Evolution has yet to come up with a suitable explanation, and so since I detect design, I infer design.

quote:

---

So, in your case, the designer isn't "god"? OK. That leaves some big mystery as to what it was.

---

What?! When did I ever state or even infer that the designer wasn't God. If I detect design, therefore infer design, then obviously I believe in a designer, which I obviously I believe to be God.

quote:

---

You have no example of an intelligent designer that is able to act on the formation of life on this planet.

---

Well actually I do. The infallible word of God. God said it, and it happened. Obviously, you don't hold to this opinion just as I don't hold to yours.

quote:

---

We have, once live has arisen, a process which can produce apparent "design" without intelligence. Since we don't know any details of how life arose we can't say that that process was involved.

---

Key point in this statement is "once life has arisen." Evolution has to be able to account for origins, and as of right now evolution is clueless in that regard. In fact the only thing that "evolution" has definitively shown is that varieties are formed. I'm fine with that. The Bible's fine with that. Nowhere does it state that species are fixed. But the formation of a variety is a far cry from common descent.