News and Politics Forum

glfredrick · 07-14-2008 04:10 PM

The other threads on evolution are getting long and we've srifted off topic in a few of them, so I'll start another to deal with the topic of which came first. I've used the familiar "chicken or egg" debate as a mere starting point, and I'm really not concerned with THAT debate. I am, however, interested in how evolutionists handle the DNA/RNA/protein dilemma.

Stated, my proposition is that the protein/DNA/RNA cellular mechanism is interrelated and irreducible.

It takes DNA to instruct RNA to carry out protien building exercises within the cell, but DNA and RNA are build FROM these protiens. How was it that DNA or RNA (actually Eukaryotic cells require both) formed in the absence of protiens, or vice-versa?

To the uninitiated, the typical design of an Eukaryotic cell is that DNA carries the "coding" for protien building. To construct new protiens (including the machines that are made of those protiens) the cell will "transcribe" information from DNA (no DNA actually passes outside the nucleus of the cell) to mRNA, which in turn carries that data to the mitochondria where that mRNA is read and a protien molecule is custom assembled to carry out some instruction. Removing any portion of this assembly line and data-transfer device equals a cell that cannot function.

Additionally, the mitochondria are not reproduced from the main nucleus of the cell -- though the instructions are sent from the nucleus, the actual reproduction of the mitochrondria is self-contained, as they house a small fragment of DNA, which begs another "which came first question."

So, which came first? How?

This ought to be an easy question to answer for the naturalists -- they are SO confident that there is indeed a purely naturalistic explanation for life and evolution of life that surely they have solved this critical issue...

zukiphile · 07-14-2008 04:14 PM

glfredrick wrote:
This ought to be an easy question to answer for the naturalists -- they are SO confident that there is indeed a purely naturalistic explanation for life and evolution of life that surely they have solved this critical issue...

Why would this be harder for them than anyone else?

Which were created first? Is that question easier?

AC · 07-14-2008 04:37 PM

glfredrick wrote:
...surely they have solved this critical issue...

Oh dear. There's a hole in current evolutionary theory. Abandon ship!

glfredrick · 07-14-2008 04:45 PM

AC wrote:
glfredrick wrote:
...surely they have solved this critical issue...
Oh dear. There's a hole in current evolutionary theory. Abandon ship!

This is but the first in a whole swiss cheese wheel of holes that I'm prepared to post...

dgm · 07-14-2008 04:57 PM

Who are you arguing with? Did someone here make the claim that evolutionary theory was infallible? Not even Darwin himself made that claim.

AC · 07-14-2008 05:05 PM

glfredrick wrote:
...a whole swiss cheese wheel of holes that I'm prepared to post...

Of course you will.

And since science really should know everything by now, I await your swiss cheese wheel of holes with trepidation and a dollop of spicy deli mustard.

glfredrick · 07-14-2008 05:07 PM

dgm wrote:
Who are you arguing with? Did someone here make the claim that evolutionary theory was infallible? Not even Darwin himself made that claim.

I'm making the claim that naturalistic evolution is a failed theory... It cannot even desribe the most simple tenets needed for it to be an operational theory. The overwhelming support for this theory is more an ingrained reaction to ideological indoctrination than actual fact.

The reason I'm bringing the actual science to this post is due to nay-sayers in other posts suggesting that I have no clue as to the "real" science involved in evolution or cell biology. I'll bring the science -- but I also expect answers, seeing as how evolution is "true" in fact...

Last edited by glfredrick (07-14-2008 05:09 PM)

SoulWrangler · 07-14-2008 05:07 PM

Egg. Chicken cant be alive without being an egg first and its not having any transition error while its alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_%28genetics%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

Last edited by SoulWrangler (07-14-2008 05:19 PM)

zukiphile · 07-14-2008 05:18 PM

glfredrick wrote:
The reason I'm bringing the actual science to this post is due to nay-sayers in other posts suggesting that I have no clue as to the "real" science involved in evolution or cell biology. I'll bring the science -- but I also expect answers, seeing as how evolution is "true" in fact...

I don't believe anyone here developed a position of that evolution is taught because it is objectively, beyond question, "true". Several disavowed that position.

That might be why DGM asked who you were arguing with.

Turbiodiesel! · 07-14-2008 05:27 PM

glfredrick wrote:
Stated, my proposition is that the protein/DNA/RNA cellular mechanism is interrelated and irreducible.

It takes DNA to instruct RNA to carry out protien building exercises within the cell, but DNA and RNA are build FROM these protiens. How was it that DNA or RNA (actually Eukaryotic cells require both) formed in the absence of protiens, or vice-versa?

Ribozymes. Funny that I've mentioned these nifty little self-reproducing, autocatalytic RNA enzymes before, but they never made it into this new post. It'd be mean to accuse you of willfully omitting well-known biological information in the service of making a point, so I won't do that.

Also, you seem to be laboring under several biochemical misconception. Transcription and translation are handled, in the modern genome, by protein-based structures, and in large genomes chromosomes are organized by histones and whatnot, but the DNA and RNA molecules are sugars, phosphate groups, and nucleotide bases.

I've corrected you on this before, so please try to remain factual.

Additionally, the mitochondria are not reproduced from the main nucleus of the cell -- though the instructions are sent from the nucleus, the actual reproduction of the mitochrondria is self-contained, as they house a small fragment of DNA, which begs another "which came first question.

Mitochondria are closely related to free-living rickettsia bacteria, suggesting to myself and various others that the well-known and observed mechanism of bacterial endosymbiosis is at work. And it's not a "small fragment of DNA"; it's a functional bacterial genome.

Before you say that there's no proof, I know; it's natural philosophy, an educated guess. But it does provide an alternative and plausible explanation that does deserve to be mentioned in any informed argument made in good faith.

Last edited by Turbiodiesel! (07-14-2008 05:36 PM)

glfredrick · 07-14-2008 05:38 PM

You are drastically over-simplifying the processes...

Simply saying that this or that symbiosis happened in no way explains the complicated interactions that I noted in my first post. As I've said before, it is SO easy to say (or draw out on paper) something that we cannot replicate in life. The narrative in no way makes the actual substance of the argument -- unless, of course, you are willing to concede that the entire affair is what you are terming naturalistic philosophy.

That seems an easy way out of a really difficult problem for naturalistic science.

Turbiodiesel! · 07-14-2008 05:43 PM

glfredrick wrote:
Simply saying that this or that symbiosis happened in no way explains the complicated interactions that I noted in my first post.

The interaction between a cell and its mitochondria is not terribly complicated.

You are drastically over-simplifying the processes...

In what way?

Any thoughts on ribozymes?

unless, of course, you are willing to concede that the entire affair is what you are terming naturalistic philosophy.

What are you bringing naturalistic philosophy into the discussion for? NATURAL philosophy is my bag, and it implies precisely nothing about naturalistic mechanisms.

And yes, hypotheses of endosymbioses are natural philosophy - as is the competing hypothesis that God designed it all this way, or designed some things you can't explain and let other things evolve when it's clear they evolved, or whatever you're actually arguing.

Last edited by Turbiodiesel! (07-14-2008 06:02 PM)

Iron Sun 254 · 07-14-2008 06:16 PM

glfredrick wrote:
AC wrote:
glfredrick wrote:
...surely they have solved this critical issue...
Oh dear. There's a hole in current evolutionary theory. Abandon ship!
This is but the first in a whole swiss cheese wheel of holes that I'm prepared to post...

And yet, despite all the holes, it's still cheese.

Turbiodiesel! · 07-14-2008 06:21 PM

Iron Sun 254 wrote:
glfredrick wrote:
AC wrote:
Oh dear. There's a hole in current evolutionary theory. Abandon ship!
This is but the first in a whole swiss cheese wheel of holes that I'm prepared to post...
And yet, despite all the holes, it's still cheese.

Praise cheeses.

EscapeVelocity · 07-14-2008 06:21 PM

Man in Black: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead.

Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Man in Black: You've made your decision then?

Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Vizzini: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?

Man in Black: Australia.

Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Man in Black: You're just stalling now.

Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Man in Black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.

Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!

Man in Black: Then make your choice.

Vizzini: I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?
Vizzini: [Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. Roberts looks. Vizzini swaps the goblets]

Man in Black: What? Where? I don't see anything.

Vizzini: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.First, let's drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.

Man in Black, Vizzini: [they drink ]

Man in Black: You guessed wrong.

Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

Vizzini: [Vizzini stops suddenly, and falls dead to the right]

Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.

Man in Black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to iocane powder.

Buho · 07-14-2008 08:42 PM

Turbio wrote:
Ribozymes.

Funny, for all you've studied on the topic of evolution, you haven't learned to stay away from the abiogenesis topic. No evolutionist has walked away looking good after participating on this topic. AC had the better answer.

Vizzini's Third Blunder is: never go in against a creationist when spontaneous generation is on the table.

Last edited by Buho (07-14-2008 08:43 PM)

Turbiodiesel! · 07-14-2008 09:16 PM

Buho wrote:
Turbio wrote:
Ribozymes.
Funny, for all you've studied on the topic of evolution, you haven't learned to stay away from the abiogenesis topic. No evolutionist has walked away looking good after participating on this topic. .

Well, no offense, bud, but it's not like your side tends to look a lot better. "Let there be organic acid polymers!" holds together even worse than the materialist narrative, and proposes no mechanism or testable hypothesis, but we don't claim to be absolutely positive about it.

And no, I wasn't going into abiogenesis. I specifically addressed the flatly inaccurate assertion that the DNA-RNA-Protein relationship was irreducibly complex or that a precursor biochemical system was impossible. A ribozyme, being capable of biocatalysis, is a concievable precursor to DNA, as it is capable both of informational storage and of catalyzing its own reproduction and/or the production of other compounds.

elliot · 07-14-2008 10:11 PM

This is an interesting article: http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2008/05/ … -wing.html

The key takeaway is that recent evo-devo research has shown our initial assumption that genes could turn on/off phenotypic features was stupendously oversimplified. In fact, genetic expression & modification is incredibly more complex. It's a good article, no matter what your personal beliefs.

Qwinn · 07-14-2008 10:50 PM

Elliot, from your link.

The wing of a bat is an amazing thing. It's not just a wing; it's clearly a modified mammalian limb. A bat looks like a lot like a rodent with really long, webbed fingers on elongated arms.

Any "creationist" that attempted to pass something like that as "looks like a lot like" or "clearly a" anything would be and regularly is laughed out of the room. That is nothing more than someone pointing to it, claiming "See? It's obvious! It looks just like a paw!", and people nodding dumbly in response because they were told to.

If that's considered "obvious" and "clear", that only says something about how much stock we should put in other instances of the same people claiming something is "obvious" and "clear". If you can extrapolate -that- far, you can say anything derives from anything.

Qwinn

Last edited by Qwinn (07-14-2008 11:16 PM)

Qwinn · 07-14-2008 11:40 PM

But then again, there's this:

I have to admit, -that- comparison just leaves me gobsmacked, as Randy Andy would say. That the left -must- have come directly from the right seems incredibly obvious. Which is the rat and which is the bat? I can't tell. Can you? -That- is -science-.

Qwinn

Last edited by Qwinn (07-14-2008 11:42 PM)

EscapeVelocity · 07-14-2008 11:56 PM

Lets have a look at "Evolution" ......

As we can see here, the Panda Bear, developed keen reflexes and a coat of fur which helps him blend in naturally with the environment. Its blacked out eyes help shield them from direct sunrays as he stalks his favorite prey, the yummy bamboo shoots.

Last edited by EscapeVelocity (07-15-2008 12:02 AM)

Crash6 · 07-15-2008 01:06 AM

Since the mechanism for creating and laying an egg exists within the chicken, I would say the chicken came first.

The chicken itself was either popped into existence, planted here as a 'seed' species to fill an ecosystem, or came to its current form through a series of random genetic mutations that all started when two amino acids joined to form a protein.

I'm to the point where I really need a joint before getting into these conversations any more.....

AC · 07-15-2008 12:19 PM

Qwinn wrote:
If that's considered "obvious" and "clear", that only says something about how much stock we should put in other instances of the same people claiming something is "obvious" and "clear". If you can extrapolate -that- far, you can say anything derives from anything.

Qwinn

Did you copy and paste this from some TCL thread?

That bat looks like a TT.

Buho · 07-15-2008 01:34 PM

Turbio wrote:
Well, no offense, bud, but it's not like your side tends to look a lot better. "Let there be organic acid polymers!" holds together even worse than the materialist narrative, and proposes no mechanism or testable hypothesis, but we don't claim to be absolutely positive about it.

Oh?

Turbio wrote:
And no, I wasn't going into abiogenesis. I specifically addressed the flatly inaccurate assertion that the DNA-RNA-Protein relationship was irreducibly complex or that a precursor biochemical system was impossible.

Glf was focusing on abiogenesis. I wouldn't have called it irreducibly complex. I would have called it a Catch-22, which in computer terminology is called a deadlock, which means nothing happens. Glf was right: you're oversimplifying things tremendously. With simple words, abiogenesis is possible (indeed, plausible). But as more details are looked at, the less plausible it becomes, to the point where abiogenesis researchers are being pushed to wilder and wilder ideas (see image above).

Related to glf's OP but kind of off-topic for abiogenesis, here's another question:

Which came first: male or female? Related to this question: What did it have sex with to reproduce and pass on its new sexuality? o.O

glfredrick · 07-15-2008 10:14 PM

Turbio wrote:
And no, I wasn't going into abiogenesis. I specifically addressed the flatly inaccurate assertion that the DNA-RNA-Protein relationship was irreducibly complex or that a precursor biochemical system was impossible.

It is interesting -- when pushed, NO evolutionist that I've ever talked to has wanted to pursue abiogenesis... Wonder why that is? That part OUGHT to have come first, lest the entire scaffolding of naturalistic evolution be erected onto the wrong building...

News and Politics Forum

#1 07-14-2008 04:10 PM

Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

#2 07-14-2008 04:14 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

glfredrick wrote:

#3 07-14-2008 04:37 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

glfredrick wrote:

#4 07-14-2008 04:45 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

AC wrote:

glfredrick wrote:

#5 07-14-2008 04:57 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

#6 07-14-2008 05:05 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

glfredrick wrote:

#7 07-14-2008 05:07 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

dgm wrote:

#8 07-14-2008 05:07 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

#9 07-14-2008 05:18 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

glfredrick wrote:

#10 07-14-2008 05:27 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

glfredrick wrote:

#11 07-14-2008 05:38 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

#12 07-14-2008 05:43 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

glfredrick wrote:

#13 07-14-2008 06:16 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

glfredrick wrote:

AC wrote:

glfredrick wrote:

#14 07-14-2008 06:21 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

Iron Sun 254 wrote:

glfredrick wrote:

AC wrote:

#15 07-14-2008 06:21 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

#16 07-14-2008 08:42 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

Turbio wrote:

#17 07-14-2008 09:16 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

Buho wrote:

Turbio wrote:

#18 07-14-2008 10:11 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

#19 07-14-2008 10:50 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

#20 07-14-2008 11:40 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

#21 07-14-2008 11:56 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

#22 07-15-2008 01:06 AM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

#23 07-15-2008 12:19 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

Qwinn wrote:

#24 07-15-2008 01:34 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

Turbio wrote:

Turbio wrote:

#25 07-15-2008 10:14 PM

Re: Which came first -- Chicken or Egg?

Turbio wrote:

Board footer