Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
It isn't anti-science, it is emotion. Emotion rules here and at DU. All the usual suspects have a visceral gut reaction when their emotions are challenged (as do we all). I am just amazed at the lengths they will go to to quell the cognitive dissonance that they feel. It must be emotional hell to rationally know that what they believe in their heart is wrong.
[[It must be emotional hell to rationally know that what they believe in their heart is wrong.]]
I weouldn’t know- All I know is that the science is for intelligent design, and against common descent as demonstrated many times here on FR.
How many genetic nosepicking arguments are there for probabilities? Quite an umber it woudl appear. Yell me the story about hte moot improbabilites again- I just love that story.
1: It seems likely that RNA has the capability to support life based on RNA genomes that are copied and maintained through the catalytic function of RNA. There are substantial gaps, however, in scientific understanding concerning how the RNA world arose, the degree of metabolic complexity that it attained, and the way that it led to DNA genomes and protein enzymes.
2: Depending on the nature of the prebiotic environment, available building blocks may have included amino acids, hydroxy acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines and fatty acids. These could have combined to form polymers of largely random sequence and mixed stereochemistry (handedness). Some of the polymers may have had special properties, such as adherence to a particular mineral surface, unusual resistance to degradation, or the propensity to form supramolecular aggregates. Eventually every polymer, no matter how stable, would have succumbed to degradation.
3: When the environment is altered, the special properties associated with a particular polymer may no longer apply and the capacity for self-replication may be lost. Persistence in a changing environment requires a more general mechanism for self-replication that allows the polymer sequence to change somewhat over time, but retain its heritage in most of the sequence that is unchanged.
4: If the building blocks of RNA were available in the prebiotic environment, if these combined to form polynucleotides, and if some of the polynucleotides began to self-replicate, then the RNA world may have emerged as the first form of life on Earth. But based on current knowledge of prebiotic chemistry, this is unlikely to have been the case. Ribose, phosphate, purines and pyrimidines all may have been available, although the case for pyrimidines is less compelling.
5: It is difficult to visualize a mechanism for self-replication that either would be impartial to these compositional differences or would treat them as sequence information in a broader sense and maintain them as heritable features.
6: The chief obstacle to understanding the origin of RNA-based life is identifying a plausible mechanism for overcoming the clutter wrought by prebiotic chemistry.
7: Another approach is to hypothesize that life did not begin with RNA; some other genetic system preceded RNA, just as it preceded DNA and protein. This approach has met with substantial progress in recent years, despite the lack of guidance from known metabolic pathways in biology regarding the chemical nature of a precursor to RNA.
8: It is also possible that RNA-based life was preceded by a replicating, evolving polymer that bore no resemblance to nucleic acids. Self-replication without darwinian evolution has been demonstrated for certain peptides and even small organic compounds. Why not cast the net broadly and consider any polymer that is capable of self-replication? A critical issue then becomes whether there is a sufficient diversity of polymer sequences that can be replicated faithfully to provide the basis for darwinian evolution.
9: The catalytic potential of TNA, PNA and other proposed precursors to RNA has not yet been explored, but any cogent hypothesis regarding pre-RNA life must consider whether that prior genetic system could have facilitated the appearance of RNA.
10: There is no known ribozyme in biology that catalyses the template-directed polymerization of NTPs [nucleoside 5’-triphosphates, a putative building block for RNA], but such molecules have been obtained using test-tube evolution. Like the evolution of organisms in nature, evolution of RNA in the laboratory involves repeated rounds of selective amplification, linking the survival of an RNA species to its fitness. In the laboratory, fitness is defined by the experimenter, for example, based on the ability of RNA to catalyse a particular chemical reaction.
11: A pool of one copy each of all possible 40mers [RNA chains of 40 nucleotides], with a mass of 26 kg, just might be achievable, but it is not clear if 40 nucleotides are sufficient to provide robust RNA polymerase activity. ... As a rule of thumb, the error rate of replication per nucleotide must be no more than about the inverse of genome length, corresponding to 99% fidelity for replication of a 100mer and 97.5% fidelity for replication of a 40mer. There may be polymerase ribozymes that meet these requirements, although such molecules have not yet been demonstrated.
12: The above discussion ignores other obstacles to RNA-catalysed RNA replication, such as maintaining a supply of activated mononucleotides, ensuring that the ribozyme will recognize its corresponding genomic RNA while ignoring other RNAs in the environment, overcoming stable self-structure within the template strand, separating the template and product strands, and operating in a similar manner on the product strand to generate new copies of the template. Additional genetic information might be required to overcome these obstacles, but a longer genome would necessitate an even higher fidelity of replication.
13: Although the central process of the RNA world was the replication of RNA genomes, some form of metabolism must have supported the process. In keeping with the second law of thermodynamics, the increase in order that occurs in a genetic system is achieved through the expenditure of high-energy starting materials that are converted to lower-energy products.
14: There are several important reactions in nucleotide synthesis that have not yet been carried out with a ribozyme. ... The possibility of a more complex RNA-based metabolism is purely conjectural.
15: Other RNA-based functions for which there is no evidence in biology, such as nucleotide synthesis and RNA polymerization, are assumed to have existed in the RNA world based on first principles, but it is important to recognize that this assumption is not supported by available historical evidence.
16: It is often said, again based on first principles rather than historical evidence, that RNA-based life must have entailed some form of cellular compartmentalization.
17: Although RNA is well suited as a genetic molecule and can evolve to perform a broad range of catalytic tasks, it has limited chemical functionality and thus may not be equipped to meet certain challenges and opportunities that arise in the environment. An important innovation of life on Earth was the development of a separate macromolecule that would be responsible for most catalytic functions, even though that molecule contained subunits that were poorly suited for replication. The invention of protein synthesis, instructed and catalysed by RNA, was the crowning achievement of the RNA world, but also began its demise.
18: It is not known whether the invention of protein synthesis preceded or followed the invention of DNA genomes. The primary advantage of DNA over RNA as a genetic material is the greater chemical stability of DNA, allowing much larger genomes based on DNA. Protein synthesis may require more genetic information than can be maintained by RNA.
19: A largely open question concerns the origin of the genetic code. The aminoacylation of RNA initially must have provided some selective advantage unrelated to the eventual development of a translation machinery.
20: The next step towards the origin of the genetic code was the formation of peptide bonds between amino acids that were attached to RNA. The products of this reaction must have conferred some selective advantage, even though the peptides probably would have been too small and too heterogeneous in sequence to function as catalysts. ... It is not clear, however, how the detailed assignments of the genetic code were made.
21: Insight into the origin and operation of the RNA world is largely inferential, based on the known chemical and biochemical properties of RNA. In the best of circumstances those inferences are supported by examining the role of RNA in contemporary biology. Without that support one must be careful not to draw detailed conclusions regarding these historical events.
“How many show-stoppers does it take to stop a show? Every one of Joyce’s listed problems (and there are others), is serious enough to forbid progress toward life. It’s a tale only an atheist could love, but here it is prominently featured in Nature. Notice that we are not picking on straw men, but the best champions the Darwin Party has to offer. Gerald Joyce, Mr. RNA World himself, lays out the latest and greatest story in the world’s most prestigious science journal. Are you impressed?”
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0702.htm
Reasonability-...
So you make up a scenario for which you have no evidence, and you expect me to accept it because it sounds "reasonable" to you? Frankly, it sounds "ludicrous" to me. Now what are we supposed to do--just grant that you're right because you're a better judge of what's reasonable than I am? This is what's supposed to pass for scientific discussion?
As I said before, I thought the topic here was Williams' paper. You seem to want to argue that his reasoning must be valid because he comes to the right conclusion. We were invited to examine what GGG considers an "airtight" argument. I've chosen to deal with that specific question, and my conclusion is that Williams' argument is logically flawed and based on false premises. There are plenty of other topics for arguing the "main central issues."
[[So you make up a scenario for which you have no evidence, and you expect me to accept it because it sounds “reasonable” to you?]]
Yup- nwext question? Tell me Haha- have you got evidence that language evovled ever so slowly until the ‘metainfo’ of grammar was achieved? No? Then is your reasoning o nthe matter any more or less valid than mine? Meta info is obviously available concerning sounds, as someone hearing an alarming sound for hte first time will instinctivvely recoil- if you can show that metainfo such as this evolved slowly, then let’s have it. The argument that language supposedly came via syllable, word, then sentances then grammar isn’t an argument against metainfo of livign systems
Is the argument any less scientific than someone suggesting thast Macroevolution despite a complete lack of evidence, and myriad evidences against it’s biological, mathematical and natural possibilites happened anyways? No? And yet you fully accept that as ‘science’? Why? Because they’ve backed their claims up with evidence?
the question was whether metainfo in livign systems is capable of arising- you pointed out a non livign system and offered it as evidence? And that passes for a scientific discussion?
[[As I said before, I thought the topic here was Williams’ paper. You seem to want to argue that his reasoning must be valid because he comes to the right conclusion. We were invited to examine what GGG considers an “airtight” argument. I’ve chosen to deal with that specific question, and my conclusion is that Williams’ argument is logically flawed and based on false premises. There are plenty of other topics for arguing the “main central issues.”]]
the one point does NOT invalidate the whole- the central issues- The discussion wasn’t about whether it’s airtight- the issue is whether or not naturalism can account for chemical purity, and whehter metainfo can arise naturally in living systems despite htere being a lack of info i nthe first place IF macroevolution were a possibility and htings evolved naturally.
you have chosen to ignore hte central issues- GGG made it clear that he was askign about these central claims and whether or not they could be refuted numerous times, but you have contented yourself and resigned yourself to apaprently accepting that hte paper must be invalid as a whoel because a few irrelevent points are not compeltely accurate evidently?
People do study this stuff, you know. I recommend this book if you're really interested in learning how languages develop. Key passage for our purposes:
The evidence relied on in this book did not come from fossils or artifacts, but from the behavior of language itself, as observed in the present and the attested period [i.e., the period for which we have written records]....In other words, the underlying thesis is that the principles and processes of linguistic change in the distant past must have been similar to those that can be observed in action over the last 5,000 years or so.There are elements of grammar common to all modern languages that are not seen, or are seen in only rudimentary forms, in the most ancient languages we have records for. So yes, there is evidence that grammar--the metainfo, if you will--continued to evolve after there were words. (Mind you, I don't expect you to accept this--the theory you just made up is obviously just as good as the ideas of people that spend their entire lives studying the history of language.)
the question was whether metainfo in livign systems is capable of arising- you pointed out a non livign system and offered it as evidence?
The comparison of language to living systems was Polanyi's. Remember Polanyi--the guy whose ideas are supposedly the basis for the paper we're discussing?
(A) All aspects of life (not just bacterial flagellums and blood clotting cascades) lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations, and (B) only intelligent design meets the criterion of an acceptable historical inference according to the Law of Cause and Effect.
While in the other thread GGG did state he velt it might be an airtight case, this thread is abotu htese two central issues
[[Polanyi argued that living organisms have a machine-like structure that cannot be explained by (or reduced to) the physics and chemistry of the molecules of which they consist.]]
What is beign discussed in htis htread is whether “All of these links are also ‘choreographed’ by information—a phenomenon that never occurs in the natural environment.” You have tried to take the discussion from living systems to non living systems, and hten claim it pokes holes in the argument, just as Polanyi claimed Grammar poked holes in the idea that livign metainfo couldn’t arise naturally. The individual steps of language however are not the metainfo we’re discussing in livign systems, however, metainfo can deal with any one of htose steps to help preserve the species IF those steps include an advantage for the living system/species- it’s late- I’m tired, will think this htrough more tomorrow with a fresher mind
You rendered my reply irrelevant by 14 seconds! But you’re right about one thing—it’s late. See you tomorrow.
[[ So yes, there is evidence that grammar—the metainfo, if you will—continued to evolve after there were words.]]
Again, you are tryign to equate metainfo in living systems with simplistic non livign ‘metainfo’ of non living systems of comunication.
[[The comparison of language to living systems was Polanyi’s.]]
and you are furthering the artument apparently htinking it pokes holes in the argument that living sdystem’s metainfo could not have arisen naturally.
[[(Mind you, I don’t expect you to accept this—the theory you just made up is obviously just as good as the ideas of people that spend their entire lives studying the history of language.)]]
No need to get nasty- My point is that the metainfo is NOT the language, as claimed by polanyi- it may be ‘metainfo’ in regards to the non living system of language- but it is magnititudes less complex than living systems inherrent metainfo and irrelevent to the discussion and question about whehter living system metainfo can arise naturally.
I know hwat he said i nthe other thread- however he made his itnentions for htis thread quite clear several times in both these threads
(A) All aspects of life (not just bacterial flagellums and blood clotting cascades) lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations, and (B) only intelligent design meets the criterion of an acceptable historical inference according to the Law of Cause and Effect.
good night.
What does this have to do with anything under the keyword homosexualagenda?
Anyone can add a keyword. Half the listed keywords on this thread are irrelevant.
That’s true. The mods used to police that a bit better though. Someone could be called out for ‘keyword abuse’.
I believe we established that the theory disallows abiogenesis, but not evolution. If the theory is sound, then life cannot arise from natural processes, it must be designed. Once designed and created, there is nothing in the theory that disallows a design that permits the organism to evolve. Macroevolution will have to wait for another day.
(1) Local School Boards are not a good vehicle for a long legal fight, because the electoral turnover is too quick -- as quick as a whim.
(2) Judges make science. In today's culture science is dicta. That is what you wanted, right?
I’d can understand people’s confusions with your mighty words. Maybe you should provide diagrams.
No, I am not saying anything of the sort. Those are your ideas. M=F/A, if A=0, M is undefined. Basic algebra dictates that there can not be a zero in the denominator.
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.