Hi Chase,
I lived in Grand Rapids for several years - went to Grand Valley for my undergrad work. Is the "Something Better News" still churned out?
I just had a few comments on your posts.
You quote anti-evolution philosopher Meyer:
quote:
Stephen C. Meyer:
quote:----------------------------------------------------------------
They [Watson and Crick] discovered that the specificity of amino acids in proteins derives from a prior specificity within the DNA molecule--from information on the DNA molecule stored as millions of specifically arranged chemicals called nucleotides or bases along the spine of the DNA’s helical strands...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not merely a chemical process, as the bases are not bonded in the order that they are read. The RNA reads from up to down (if you were looking on a diagram of DNA). Say there is CGATTGCGCAT, etc. These bases are not bonded--they have no association with each other directly whatsoever.
Your last sentence above is absolutely incorrect. The nucleotides in a strand of DNA most certainly are bonded to one another via the 'spine' as Meyer says in your next quote (more later). If they were not, there would not BE a strand of DNA. It would not be called a moleculae, it would be a collection of free nucleotides, and they would encode nothing.
quote:
However, the mRNA reads them this way:
Stephen C. Meyer:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are bonds fixing individual (nucleotide) bases to the sugar-phosphate backbones on each side of the molecule. Yet notice that there are no chemical bonds between the bases that run along the spine of the helix. Yet it is precisely along this axis of the molecule that the genetic instructions in DNA are encoded[7]...
In short, differing chemical affinities do not explain the multiplicity of amino acid sequences that exist in naturally occurring proteins or the sequential ordering of any single protein. In the case of DNA this point can be made more dramatically... There are bonds, for example, between the sugar and the phosphate molecules that form the two twsiting backbones of the DNA molecule. There are bonds fixing individual nucleotide bases to the sugar-phosphate backbones on each side of the molecule. There are also hydrogen bonds stretching horizontally across the molecule between nucleotide bases making so-called complementary pairs... Most importantly, however, notice that there are no chemical bonds between the nucleotide bases that run along the spine of the helix. Yet it is precisely along this axis of the molecule that the genetic instructions in DNA are encoded. In other words, the chemical constituents that are responsible for the message text in DNA do not interact chemically in any specific way.[8]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the information encoded or instructions given in DNA is not merely a chemical process.
This sort of confusion follows from an attempt to find 'meaning' where there is none. I like to refer to these 'specificity' arguemtns as classic cart-before-the-horse exercises. We take extant protein X. We see that it is encoded by gene Y. We see that proetin X is useful, maybe even necessary to us (and perhaps many other organisms). We then conclude that this particular protein - extant protein X - is a necessary requirement for us to live, and so must have been in its present conformation/sequence/etc. from the beginning. Thus, it was
specified from the get-go - impossible for protein X, encoded by gene Y, to have arisen via 'chance' because, afterall, we NEED protein X in itgs extant form and therefore gene Y must have been placed as-is in the genome.
In sum, we look at the extant and conclude - without evidence or a knowledge of the history of the molecule of the lineage(s) in which we find it - that it must have been always so, and that therefpore it must have been 'designed' because of the extant specificity and such...
By the way - does Meyer explain how nucleotides are placed in their
specific order?
You then quote creationist extraordinaire Jerry Bergman:
quote:
Jerry Bergman:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The correct amino acid sequence is ordinarily critical for most of the protein chain, but proteins with a few incorrectly placed amino acids can sometimes still function, although often not as well. Conversely, many single changes can be critical or lethal. An example is sickle cell anemia in which there is one single incorrect amino acid out of 300. The replacement of glutamine with valine produces red blood cells that tend to deform (called sickle cells) in certain environments. In the homozygous sickle cell condition the blood functions poorly under certain circumstances, causing anemia, severe pain, and even strokes in children. Many other mutations prevent the production of functional enzymes. The consequent lack of a necessary component in the cell causes dysfunction or disease.[10]
The use of hemoglobin to prop up his claim is disingenuous, in my opinion.
Indeed, there are examples of "necessary" proteins - cytochrome C for example - that are found in nearly all forms of multicellular life and yet can function while being as much as 50% different in amino acid sequence in different lineages. Does Jerry mention this fact? Or just the one fact that he can use to support his implications?
I am sure that Holland has a strong anti-evolution public sentiment. Shame that it does not also have a strong critical-thinking one...
™ Version 4.2
