Replies

Your example of chromosome change makes no sense since you can change the DNA sequence all you want and it's still DNA. Prions may be an example of a stage of the process by which abiogenesis occurred, but they are not postulated to be a common ancestor to all living organisms. As far as we know, the ability to reproduce is a signature of life. We have never seen any self-replicating organisms that do not use some form of nucleic acid. (I would consider DNA and RNA to be basically the same genetic material since their structures are so similar and mechanisms exist for the incorporation of ribose rather than deoxyribose into the sugar backbone of the chain.) It may be possible to preserve the theory of evolution by severely modifying it. I was trying to provide a relatively simple example of an observation that would falsify evolution as it currently is understood. I would agree that ID is not a scientific theory. It is indeed unfalsifiable. The point was to contrast the falsifiability of evolution with the lack of falsifiability of ID.

"Your example of chromosome change makes no sense since you can change the DNA sequence all you want and it's still DNA."

I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were referring to a specific nucleotide sequence that should be shared among all living things. To answer your original comment (now that I more accurately understand it), I'll say that everything (to the best of my knowledge) that's been classified as 'alive' thus far makes use of nucleic acids (including some things which are supposedly 'not' alive). I would also point to the part of my previous response in which I mentioned that multiple organisms could have formed independently of one another. If something did indeed develop and survived all this time that didn't make use of nucleic acids, I'd be impressed. However, from everything I've seen about how life as we know it functions, that would seem to be fairly difficult. I'd also point out that it's very possible that the first lifeforms on this planet made no use of nucleic acids whatsoever, and that nucleic acids only became necessary to sustain more complex organisms such as bacteria. Aside from all that, assuming we were to find a living organism which doesn't use nucleic acids, that would only prove what everyone but the zealot nutballs believe - that the theory of Evolution is neither perfect nor complete. It wouldn't suddenly mean that evolution's explanations about how RNA/DNA-using organisms developed over time - it would simply mean that there are some living things evolution does not explain.

"Prions may be an example of a stage of the process by which abiogenesis occurred, but they are not postulated to be a common ancestor to all living organisms."

Ambiogenesis is a nasty thing most evolutionists like to keep stuffed in the closet. I agree with you that prions could well be evidence that it is, in fact, a reality. Obviously, without some divine being coming down from Heaven to make life (metaphysics), ambiogenesis is a required part of evolutionary theory. I think the lab experiments in which amino acids and carbon compounds form under simulated early-Earth conditions also lend credence to ambiogenesis being a reality, but that next step (getting to something we'd actually consider 'alive') has not, to my knowledge, yet been observed.

"We have never seen any self-replicating organisms that do not use some form of nucleic acid."

True, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; hmm? :-)

"(I would consider DNA and RNA to be basically the same genetic material since their structures are so similar and mechanisms exist for the incorporation of ribose rather than deoxyribose into the sugar backbone of the chain.)"

Mostly agreed, though RNA does behave quite a bit differently from DNA, especially in terms of stability (for obvious reasons). Let's just say that, as a human being, I feel a hell of a lot better off with DNA, as opposed to RNA, forming the backbone of my genetic code. :-) As a side note, I sincerely doubt that early life forms would have used DNA. For one, it's rather bulky and wasteful for such simple creatures. For another, it would certainly slow down evolution by quite a ways, and that's bad news for early-Earth dwelling beings that need to (on the scale of a species) adapt quickly to an ever-changing hostile environment. RNA might be unstable enough to allow for the quick changes necessary, but I think something even simpler would have been more suitable.

"I was trying to provide a relatively simple example of an observation that would falsify evolution as it currently is understood."

Without undermining one of the pillars of evolution (specifically, the mechanisms that drive it), it's difficult to falsify it as a whole, though not terribly difficult to poke small holes here and there. If we had a complete fossil record, things would be far easier. As usual, Mother Nature is far from willing to comply there. With incomplete knowledge comes incomplete theories to explain it all.

"I would agree that ID is not a scientific theory. It is indeed unfalsifiable."

Which is why, from a scientific perspective, I find the idea unpalatable. I like things that can be disproven. I like things where evidence can be presented for or against. My problem with ID is that it inherently requires the application of metaphysics, which is beyond the range of good science. ID would probably look more acceptable to me in the total absence of a competing, testable theory. Thus far, the theory of Evolution has done reasonably well in explaining what we now see here today. ID seems to be stuck in the middle between creationists and evolutionists, with a plethora of supporters who all swing in different directions. Unless and until ID can put together a single-perspective argument that's able to be tested and doesn't involve metaphysics, I can't see myself looking toward it.

That being said, I find it far easier to swallow than the one about how the Earth was created a couple thousand years ago and the entire fossil record is a mass deception by God to fool us silly humans. I can only imagine that those folks must have been bleeding from the eyes after watching The Matrix for the first time...