Posted on 05/06/2005 7:36:09 PM PDT by DouglasKC
Thanks. You know what I think.
Bump
"RNA world is still a hypothesis, and self-replication is a doubtful requirement."
self-replication was the _reason_ for coming up with RNA-world in the first place. It provided the hope of a simple mechanism for RNA transcription, rather than the complicated one we have now.
"Every stinkin' one of us critters share fundamental chemical and morphologic identities."
I did not claim that there were no identities, but that the links are becoming more broken the more we study it.
"This statement draws a blank from me on two scores. 1) Of course all species have "alternate" DNA coding."
Apparently I didn't express myself well enough. There are alternate codings of which DNA sequences map to which amino acids. This would be especially difficult to have happen by neo-Darwinism, as when the code changed, it would change ALL of the expressed enzymes, leaving little chance for survival. There are very few species which have these alternate DNA codings, but they do exist.
"Distinct, DNA-encapsulating unicellularity was not an instantaneous event, by our current lights, so there is no need to develop a scientific explaination for it."
So you come up with an even more unsupported hypothesis in its place? And the root of the tree is not the only place where there are huge, gaping gaps. Turtles and bats come to mind, too.
Be that as it may, self-replication is not the fulcrum of the RNA world argument. RNA beasties are part of a complex set of chemical feedback loops that can and do produce other RNA in a long cyclic chain. It is very easy to imagine the whole shebang getting along just fine without any DNA, and without requiring a particular RNA molecule to reproduce itself autonomously.
Not even close. You do not realize what you are up against in this argument. Every single enzyme or protein provides an independent vector of corresponding DNA tracing back through history by looking at the gradual mutational changes that occur in closely allied creatures for that one DNA segment. That means we have literally thousands of independent double checks on the claims that the DNA version of the Tree of Life makes. We have barely scratched the surface of this investigation, but so far, what we see does not remotely support your claim.
Why?
as when the code changed, it would change ALL of the expressed enzymes, leaving little chance for survival. There are very few species which have these alternate DNA codings, but they do exist.
Assuming this is true, I fail to see what compelling point it demonstrates. I also fail to see the internal logic of the argument: assuming one codon change destroyed the usefulness of the resulting enzyme--which is not necessarily the case--why is that any different from the case for any enzyme/protein?
"Distinct, DNA-encapsulating unicellularity was not an instantaneous event, by our current lights, so there is no need to develop a scientific explaination for it."
So you come up with an even more unsupported hypothesis in its place?
The GodDidItWhileNoOneWasLooking theory is inherently unsupported, and proud of it. Any alternative involving stuff and how it behaves, broken into many discrete steps, is an infinitely better scientific hypothesis. Not because the offered alternative is necessarily wrong--but because it is necessarily not science.
And the root of the tree is not the only place where there are huge, gaping gaps.
Let's consider the huge gaps in the theory of intergalactic gravitational attraction. Physics simply refused to address all the empty space between galaxies where it has absolutely no evidence whatsoever to offer of gravitational influence. How long will this shoddy form of science be permitted in our classrooms, in the face of these huge, shaming gravity gaps?
Turtles and bats come to mind, too.
Well, bats, anyway. Of the ding family.
Premise1:A system is composed of several interdependent and interacting parts functioning together to make a whole or for a common purpose.
Premise2:removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
Premise3:there is no empirical evidence that simple biological systems, on their own, become more complex systems.
Conclusion:any biological system is irreducibly complex and it cannot be produced directly by continuously improving a simpler design through slight, successive modifications to a precursor system.
That is a valid deduction, and unless the premises can be falsified is sound. Althouhg, I'll acknowledge that the above syllogism could be a variant of the Black Swan fallacy. Now, you said:
So new irreducible complexities are occuring all the time everywhere"That sounds like a conclusion to me. How do you get there? Why don't you have a go at rigorously defining your conclusion? And we'll see how well you get on with that.
"Every single enzyme or protein provides an independent vector of corresponding DNA tracing back through history by looking at the gradual mutational changes that occur in closely allied creatures for that one DNA segment. That means we have literally thousands of independent double checks on the claims that the DNA version of the Tree of Life makes. We have barely scratched the surface of this investigation, but so far, what we see does not remotely support your claim."
There are only 60 universal genes. Considering that a minimal for a functioning cell is around 600, there is very little common ground between the kingdoms.
In addition, early eukaryotic genomes were MORE complex, not less:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0408355101v1
"These results show that early eukaryotic gene structures were very complex, and that simplification, not embellishment, has dominated subsequent evolution."
And then there's Doolittle's "Uprooting the tree of life" in Scientific American:
"Many eukaryotic genes turn out to be unlike those of any known archaea or bacteria; they seem to have come from nowhere."
"The GodDidItWhileNoOneWasLooking theory is inherently unsupported, and proud of it."
It is not unsupported. The _mechanism_ is not available for study, but the _effects_ are. This is no different from any other forensic analysis.
"Any alternative involving stuff and how it behaves, broken into many discrete steps, is an infinitely better scientific hypothesis."
Whether or not it's "good science" is meaningless. Whether or not it is true is the relevant issue. If it is true, yet bad science, then science has some real problems. As Behe said:
"Still, some critics claim that science by definition can’t accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can’t settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore."
Is Newton's theory of gravity wrong? It didn't accurately predict the perhilion of mercury, and it's description of the universe is radically different from Einstein's universe. And yet, we blithely use Newton's theory to design airplanes, shoot artillary, and pilot landing craft down to the moon's surface.
We don't primarily prefer scientific theories because we think they are truthfully true, we give preference to them to the extent that they are useful. Few scientists would tell you that any existing scientific theory is the rock-bottom unassailable truth. But they would mostly agree that our current theories are the most useful ones we might, at the present moment, have chosen.
It is not unsupported. The _mechanism_ is not available for study, but the _effects_ are. This is no different from any other forensic analysis.
Well, unfortunately, you have to suggest to me an experiment whereby I can make an analytical choice between the GodDidIt, the OdinDidIt, the RaynordTheFoxDidIt, TheForceDidIt, SiliconLifeFromTheNthDimensionDidit and the LizardAliensDidit theories--and, since your big arguments are regarding lack of evidence in the currently accepted paradigm, one is hard-pressed to think how you would go about that. Notice please, that the current evidence of evolutionary theory does not preclude any of these explanations--it just makes them kinda stupid to waste serious resources on.
I have little faith that this number is correct, but even if it is, 60 is correlation enough to cinch the argument beyond a reasonable doubt. I also have little faith that this number accounts for the genes that are universal within families, phyla, etc. This is the clincher argument for evolution, and you are short-sheeting it in a rather painfully silly way.
In addition, early eukaryotic genomes were MORE complex, not less:
Yea, so? Where is it writ in Darwinian stone that all genomes need to become more complex as time goes on?
"Many eukaryotic genes turn out to be unlike those of any known archaea or bacteria; they seem to have come from nowhere."
...or from viruses that are no longer extant: AID's is probably going to end up as an inactivated string in our DNA, like many other retro-viruses before it did. AIDs "came from nowhere" insofar as long-term primate evolution is concerned. Your immune system phage genes "came from nowhere" long-term evolutionarily speaking. You give nature orders of magnetude less credit than it deserves on its track record for genetic innovation along twisty, unexpected pathways.
"Well, unfortunately, you have to suggest to me an experiment whereby I can make an analytical choice between the GodDidIt, the OdinDidIt, the RaynordTheFoxDidIt, TheForceDidIt, SiliconLifeFromTheNthDimensionDidit and the LizardAliensDidit theories"
Why? Theories are not proven one way or another. Theories are used as the basis for inquiry. As such, Christian Creation is a valid basis for inquiry, and is in fact what led to genetics. I don't know much about the other creation stories, but if they serve as useful bases for inquiry, I don't see why someone else shouldn't use them as such.
In fact, the point of all this is that THE PAST is not subject to the same kind of mathematical calculation that is possible with PRESENT EXPERIMENT. Science based on history is always deeply tied in with our assumptions, because we cannot repeat historical occurrences. This is the difference between forensic science and experimental science.
The scientists in this case are saying that the ONLY valid basis for inquiry is the evolutionary model, while the others are saying that (a) the evolutionary model is not perfect, and (b) there are other models to choose from. They are settling with just having (a) mentioned in class, whether or not (b) ever happens.
Likewise, to your mention of Newton's laws being useful while not true, you again are forgetting that we are talking about historical/forensic science, not experimental science. The ENTIRE POINT of forensic science is to ascertain truth, not just a calculable model. Even if one were to come up with a naturalistic model of how erosion could have formed the faces of Mt. Rushmore, that does not necessitate it being taught in science class as the way that it happened.
As to the introduction of massive amounts of genes by retroviruses, this seems kind of a silly idea for being the origin of eukaryotic genomes, as that sort of information still needs to be created in some fashion. The point still stands that there are VAST differences between the kingdoms, which are becoming more apparent, not less, as we know more about it.
Likewise, it is specious to argue that evolution does not necessitate an upward trend. The fact is, to get from molecules to man there has to have been a general upward trend, whether or not you incorporate it into the "theory" proper. Showing the trend to be downward shows evolution to be precisely what creationists think it is -- a gradual decrease in genetic information and ability over time.
Why? Theories are not proven one way or another. Theories are used as the basis for inquiry. As such, Christian Creation is a valid basis for inquiry,
No--you are proposing that supernatural sources beyond human ken caused the world to flip into existence. If it is beyond human ken, it is beyond sciences ken.
and is in fact what led to genetics.
A bold claim of little merit whatsoever.
I don't know much about the other creation stories, but if they serve as useful bases for inquiry, I don't see why someone else shouldn't use them as such.
Great. We can teach the "turtles all the way down" theory in science class, alongside with the astrology and the flat-earth theory. After all, if astrology can serve as a useful basis for inquiry, "I don't see why someone else shouldn't use it as such".
Indeed. I presume that you therefore reject galactic astronomy out of hand as specious nonsense, after all we know nothing whatever about galactic relationships except those that occured in the PAST.
We execute people on the findings of forensic science. Are you opposed to forensic science?
Sounds cool - read later
Sounds cool - read later
No, just that it's the only one currently available that can be prodded and poked with the tools and techniques of science.
while the others are saying that (a) the evolutionary model is not perfect,
Well, duh. It's a natural science, it never can be "perfect".
and (b) there are other models to choose from. They are settling with just having (a) mentioned in class, whether or not (b) ever happens.
There are an infinite supply of models to choose from, as in astro-physics, where you can look as the flat earth model and the astrological model and the healing crystals model. However, we are talking about science class, and in science class, we should teach kids what scientists currently think, not what cranks and hippies currently think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.