Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9027 total)
53 online now:
jar (1 member, 52 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,427 Year: 1,073/14,102 Month: 65/411 Week: 86/168 Day: 3/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Simultaneous Evolution?
sac51495
Member (Idle past 3510 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 1 of 42 (574110)
08-14-2010 2:38 AM


Although I don't necessarily plan to get really into this discussion, I would like to start this discussion up and hope that some discussion will ensue.

The topic name - simultaneous evolution - indicates that this is to be a discussion of those characteristics that we see in the world around us which are mutually supportive of one another, and necessary to one another. The question is this: how would these things evolve in the world of an evolutionist?

For example, take the second most important chemical in cells (second perhaps to proteins) - deoxy-ribonucleic acid. Without this chemical - which is the information base of the cell - no life could be expected to carry on, because there would be no way of creating proteins, nor of reproduction. But is DNA the only necessary chemical for the creating of proteins in a cell? Ribonucleic acid is equally as important. It's primary distinction from DNA is (unless I'm remembering wrong) that it has the nucleotide uracil, whereas DNA has the nucleotide thymine instead. RNA is also comprised of a single strand, while DNA is comprised of two.

So here we have two chemicals working together to create something, with DNA being the information, while RNA can be seen as the language interpreter.

So where does the problem arise? Well, information is useless unless it is organized into a form in which it can be made useful. I could write "qbcab, sei8bj - eisligh", and tell you that that was information, but unless it is organized into a recognizable form, or a workable form, it is entirely useless. RNA serves this function in a cell, by "interpreting" the information in the DNA, and translating it so that it can be useful, through the correct sequencing of amino acids to form proteins to be used in the cells for various functions...

But DNA (information) is completely useless, that is unless it has RNA (the language interpreter). But RNA serves no function unless there is DNA (information) to be interpreted.

So the question is this: why, or how, could information (DNA) and an interpreter (RNA) conveniently arise at the same time so that they can be useful to one another? Aside from the obvious complications of forming information by itself, there is the extreme difficulty of getting an "interpreter" (RNA) to arise at the same time...Without RNA, DNA is completely and utterly useless, even if it is organized in such a way that it contains information, and RNA is completely and utterly useless unless DNA is present.

So:

(1) - Neither DNA or RNA by themselves would have any "survival value" whatsoever.

(2) - You still have the complication of getting the DNA to be organized in a useful way in the first place.

(3) - You also have to have a cytoplasm in which the RNA can use the information to synthesize proteins.

(4) - ...I'd be glad for some other people to think of more difficulties that would be brought about by this example.


There are other examples of "simultaneous evolution" in this world that are difficult to deal with, but I will not list them now, though I may in a later post. If anyone else can think of any other example of simultaneous evolution that they think are very good examples, please share them, for our mutual enlightenment.


"For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb." - (Psalm 139:13)


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 08-14-2010 9:08 AM sac51495 has responded
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 08-14-2010 1:35 PM sac51495 has responded
 Message 6 by Dr Jack, posted 08-14-2010 2:34 PM sac51495 has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2010 2:54 PM sac51495 has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-14-2010 4:14 PM sac51495 has not yet responded
 Message 23 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-24-2010 6:09 PM sac51495 has not yet responded

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 3510 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 7 of 42 (574187)
08-14-2010 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by nwr
08-14-2010 9:08 AM


Exclusively chemical?
nwr,

I am one of those who prefers to not consider [DNA] information.

And I also consider the statement you just made to contain no information...following your logic that is.

Information in language is formed by the correct sequencing of letters...If I write "het sargs si rnege", I have written no information, whereas if I unscrambled it, it contains information: "the grass is green".

Information in DNA is formed by the correct sequencing of nucleotide bases, which are sequenced just in the correct way that sections of the DNA can be copied in order to form various proteins. All of the instructions for the makeup of your body - eye color, nose length, skin color, etc. - are contained in a single strand of DNA, in each of your cells. How is this not information? I guess you'd better go tell all the information scientists that study DNA that they need not bother because DNA isn't really information, if indeed you are correct.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 08-14-2010 9:08 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by nwr, posted 08-14-2010 5:30 PM sac51495 has not yet responded

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 3510 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 8 of 42 (574188)
08-14-2010 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ringo
08-14-2010 1:35 PM


Ringo,

The answer, of course, is that they both existed before they came together in one system. Fans were used for ventilating mines and engines were cooled by convection. They both had other uses and were independent of each other.

And before DNA and RNA were brought together in one system, DNA was used for....? And RNA was used for....?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 08-14-2010 1:35 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 08-14-2010 3:24 PM sac51495 has not yet responded

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 3510 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 15 of 42 (575761)
08-21-2010 12:55 AM


RNA World?

RNA World...

Dr. Adequate referred to an RNA world as hypothetical; it is just that. The postulation of an RNA World reminds me somewhat of Dean Kenyon's co-authoring of Biochemical Predestination (with Gary Steinman). This was a postulation that certain amino acids had an attraction to other particular amino acids. And these attractions were such that when the amino acids connected to one another, they were automatically sequenced in the correct way so that proteins were formed (it must be noted that amino acids must be sequenced precisely the right way in order to form a protein). So this hypothesis would make possible (and really, unavoidable) the formation of complex proteins in a primeval pond. At the time, it appeared as though this could happen, but there was absolutely no evidence that it did happen. Dean Kenyon went on to reject his own hypothesis, and become a prominent YEC and an ID proponent.

This anecdote demonstrates the difference between postulation and empirically-based claims. One may postulate that there is a remote possibility of something occurring, or they may make claims backed by evidence. There is indeed a difference. The way that both "biochemical predestination" and an "RNA world" come across to me is as a person saying that they "know" that something (evolution perhaps) is true, and then they formulate every hypothesis necessary to describe parts of the world that the original theory fails to explain. But the only evidence that backs these hypotheses is the "fact" that evolution (yes, this is somewhat generalized) occurred. But this is obviously not good evidence.

Dr. Adequate mentioned that "a lot of the most basic nuts and bolts of the process of making proteins consist of RNA enzymes such as tRNA and rRNA". This is indeed true, but it does not support the notion that RNA, in and of itself, can carry out all of the necessary functions for life, including reproduction. It has indeed been shown that certain types of RNA have the ability to act as enzymes; but in cells nowadays, we never have RNA that acts completely independently of DNA. Typically, mRNA gets information for amino acid sequencing (this is slightly generalized) from the DNA, and then tRNA and rRNA may act as catalyzers [sic] for the process of protein synthesis. To summarize, we do not see in vivo any evidence of an "RNA world". But some people have been able to make RNA perform numerous functions under perfect conditions. This is analogous (credit for this analogy is given to Hubert Yockey) to building a roof for a house, in order that the walls and then finally the foundation can be built without worry of being rained on - because after all, there is a roof to cover you...In like manner, a biochemist can construct the perfect conditions for RNA, and then hypothesize the formation of all the parts we see in vivo.

And here are a few generalized postulates necessary to an RNA world, postulates which the hypothesis does not prove (of course), borrowed from (who else?) Dean Kenyon:

1. - There was a prebiotic pool of beta-D-ribonucleotides.

2. - Beta-D ribonucleotides spontaneously form polymers linked together by 3', 5'-phosphodiester linkages

3. - A polyribonucleotide (i.e. RNA molecule), once formed, would have the catalytic activity to replicate itself, and a population of such self-replicating molecules could arise.

4. - Self-replicating RNA molecules would have all of the catalytic activities necessary to sustain a ribo-organism.


Bluejay mentioned viruses that contain RNA as a storage of information. But this provides no evidence of the hypothetical RNA world, because the RNA in a virus absolutely cannot be used in and of itself to produce anything: viruses are, by definition, not life, because in order to reproduce, they must use the DNA of culprit cells. Note that we still do not have a case of RNA performing any sort of reproduction independent of DNA: an RNA world is purely in vitro, not in vivo. Not to mention the fact that we know relatively little about RNA in vitro.


If there is one term I hate, it is the term "science" used in reference to historical hypotheses. Science is the investigation of the world through data gathered, experimentation, etc., while historical "science" (ugh) really amounts to nothing less than randomly conjectured hypotheses that have no basis in the world we see around us. We don't see evolution in the world around us (talking about the present). Rather, if evidence is brought, the evidence is confined exclusively to the possibility that evolution could provide a plausible, naturalistic explanation for the world around us. I would actually disagree with even this, but besides the fact that evolution - in and of itself - is incredibly controversial, you still must deal with the problem that evolution deals primarily with possibilities, possibilities that involve such postulates as as the existence of a biologically-suited, primeval pond, rich with just the right chemicals (for some of which there is no plausible explanation as to how they could have condensed so close to the sun) to produce amino acids, which are formed by being struck by lightning (another hypothesis), which then interact with ribozymes to be formed into chains of amino acids, which then (through a complex process) form small clumps of RNA, which eventually produce more and more of themselves so as to form longer, and more suitable, RNA strands, which can eventually catalyze the synthesis of proteins, eventually forming a cell....

Okay, maybe my sequencing of events was not perfect, but please notice something about all of this: besides from some difficulties with the actual steps, one must realize that the steps are mere possibilities (if that), and really only serve as an escape device for evolutionists.

Edited by sac51495, : typo

Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 1:30 AM sac51495 has responded
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 2:44 AM sac51495 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 20 by haleyonline, posted 08-21-2010 10:21 AM sac51495 has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 08-21-2010 11:44 AM sac51495 has responded

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 3510 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 18 of 42 (575790)
08-21-2010 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate
08-21-2010 1:30 AM


Re: RNA World?
Dr. Adequate,

we can observe (in RNA viruses) that RNA is quite capable of performing the function of DNA.

I assume that you are not referring to the reproductive function of DNA; right? Because a virus is, by definition, "a small infectious agent that can replicate only inside the living cells of organisms." Viruses are not considered to be life-forms. Why? Because they cannot reproduce, unless they attach themselves to a living organism, or, "host". This is absolutely, 100% necessary in order for a virus to replicate itself. So we find that RNA in viruses depends on the genetic material of living cells, further proving the fact that we have no in vivo examples of an "RNA world".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 1:30 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2010 3:54 AM sac51495 has not yet responded
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 2:42 PM sac51495 has responded

  
sac51495
Member (Idle past 3510 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 24 of 42 (576639)
08-24-2010 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Blue Jay
08-21-2010 11:44 AM


Re: RNA World?
Bluejay,

Since marking your own mistakes with “sic” is rather inexplicable, and since I can’t find the word “catalyzer” anywhere else on this thread, I'm curious as to whether this is actually your own writing.

Heh. I did worry about that myself, but hoped it wouldn't lead to any difficulties: yes, that is my own writing. Apparently, the word "catalyzer(s)", is not found in the dictionary. But, I figured that given the situation I was using it in, the meaning was rather obvious. I hope that this will lead to no further confusion.

it’s difficult to take seriously your argument that RNA can’t function without DNA.

I may be nit-picking, but (here I go ), I wouldn't say that RNA can't "function" without DNA; rather, I would say:

  • RNA (particularly mRNA) has no "survival" benefits, unless DNA is present to be interpreted.

  • There are many problems with getting RNA to evolve at all, even if DNA were present.

  • Both RNA and DNA contain information, which is an incredibly difficult problem to deal with when it comes to evolution.

    Once again, let me iterate that all the postulation of an RNA world has come as a result of highly controlled experimentation, or, in vitro. Why is this a difficulty? Because we know relatively little about the functions and properties of RNA, so highly controlled experiments mean little.

    And further, this hypothetical "RNA world" seems little more to me than pseudo-science, since, after all, science is the the study of the material world around us, or the environment that we see around us. Postulations about historical events (possibilities) through controlled experimentation has nothing to do with the environment around us. Hence the adjective "pseudoscience".

    Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.


    "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36) ~ Sola Deo Gloria

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 21 by Blue Jay, posted 08-21-2010 11:44 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 08-24-2010 10:38 PM sac51495 has not yet responded

      
    sac51495
    Member (Idle past 3510 days)
    Posts: 176
    From: Atlanta, GA, United States
    Joined: 04-02-2010


    Message 25 of 42 (576640)
    08-24-2010 9:45 PM
    Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
    08-21-2010 2:42 PM


    Re: RNA World?
    crashfrog,

    That doesn't mean they're not alive; that just means they're parasites.

    One could perhaps say that, although biological textbooks that I have read refer to viruses as non-life. Personally, I disagree with the notion that viruses are life forms.

    But whether they are alive or not really has no bearing on this discussion. Even if they are alive, they do not have the ability to self-replicate without a host cell, all of which contain DNA (in vivo).

    Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.


    "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36) ~ Sola Deo Gloria

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 08-21-2010 2:42 PM crashfrog has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 08-24-2010 10:50 PM sac51495 has not yet responded

      
    sac51495
    Member (Idle past 3510 days)
    Posts: 176
    From: Atlanta, GA, United States
    Joined: 04-02-2010


    Message 26 of 42 (576643)
    08-24-2010 9:52 PM


    Hmmmm
    This is indeed an interesting thread, but it hasn't exactly generated the type of discussion I had in mind; particularly, I've been a bit of a loner (as on other threads). So I may not have time to respond to all posts, as I was not intending to spend a lot of time on this thread anyways...

    Shalamabobbi said that I don't want to spend a lot of time on this thread for fear that I may be pinned down...

    If you wish to look at it that way, then you may.


    "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36) ~ Sola Deo Gloria

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021