[_ Old Earth _] The Amazing Discovery of DNA

[Asyncritus]

It is a very strange thing - perhaps not so strange when you think about it - that abiogeneticists can possibly think that if they manage to produce DNA by some biochemical method, that that molecule will be alive.

Let's grant them everything they need, and they finally synthesise a molecule of DNA. Will that live?

If we describe something living as something exhibiting the 7 functions of almost all living things, then that molecule they've just made has got several serious problems.

It has to: Grow, Respire (to produce the energy to power its living functions), respond to stimuli, move, feed, excrete any of its own poisonous products, and finally, reproduce.

That is an extremely tall order, but the point I want to make is that IN ADDITION TO the necessary biochemicals, there is a series of INSTINCTS which power those behaviours.

Those behaviours are in principle common to EVERY living thing. Those instincts must therefore be present also IN EVERY LIVING THING.

WITHOUT THOSE INSTINCTS, life itself is impossible - but instincts are immaterial, and NOT subject to the usual 'evolutionary processes'. The instincts had to arise in one blow, completely and without error.

If there was, for instance, an error in the instinct powering respiration, then that was it. Finish. Extinction.

So somehow, our DNA molecule which has just 'evolved' or whatever term they care to use, has got to have the instinct BUILT IN - or the molecule is going nowhere.

It is a really strange thought that a molecule could possess an instinct - but that is an absolutely ESSENTIAL requirement, if abiogenesis is ever going to get off the ground.

And while they can mix chemicals to their hearts content, they cannot generate an instinct.

www.howdoesinstinctevolve,com

 

[Pard]

It is a very strange thing - perhaps not so strange when you think about it - that abiogeneticists can possibly think that if they manage to produce DNA by some biochemical method, that that molecule will be alive.

Let's grant them everything they need, and they finally synthesise a molecule of DNA. Will that live?

If we describe something living as something exhibiting the 7 functions of almost all living things, then that molecule they've just made has got several serious problems.

It has to: Grow, Respire (to produce the energy to power its living functions), respond to stimuli, move, feed, excrete any of its own poisonous products, and finally, reproduce.

That is an extremely tall order, but the point I want to make is that IN ADDITION TO the necessary biochemicals, there is a series of INSTINCTS which power those behaviours.

Those behaviours are in principle common to EVERY living thing. Those instincts must therefore be present also IN EVERY LIVING THING.

WITHOUT THOSE INSTINCTS, life itself is impossible - but instincts are immaterial, and NOT subject to the usual 'evolutionary processes'. The instincts had to arise in one blow, completely and without error.

If there was, for instance, an error in the instinct powering respiration, then that was it. Finish. Extinction.

So somehow, our DNA molecule which has just 'evolved' or whatever term they care to use, has got to have the instinct BUILT IN - or the molecule is going nowhere.

It is a really strange thought that a molecule could possess an instinct - but that is an absolutely ESSENTIAL requirement, if abiogenesis is ever going to get off the ground.

And while they can mix chemicals to their hearts content, they cannot generate an instinct.

www.howdoesinstinctevolve,com

 

[jasoncran]

while i dont buy the toe. i want look at that book.

 

[Green Man]

Good evening everyone[smile].

Pard, if theological belief was completely taken out of the equation, do you believe that that book would still be able to present scientific evidences sufficient to support the authors premise?

 

[jasoncran]

Good evening everyone[smile].

Pard, if theological belief was completely taken out of the equation, do you believe that that book would still be able to present scientific evidences sufficient to support the authors premise?

i am curious why must science have the answer to the who? think about it. it begs the question it must be a natural answer. what if you meet that lifeform and he or it or what not says ah you made it this far and now you must die and kills you and head to find all human life and kill it all off. because he or it can. it amuses him to create and destroy at will.

 

[coelacanth]

i am curious why must science have the answer to the who? think about it. it begs the question it must be a natural answer. what if you meet that lifeform and he or it or what not says ah you made it this far and now you must die and kills you and head to find all human life and kill it all off. because he or it can. it amuses him to create and destroy at will.

Does science require that there is a "who" involved? I have never seen anything scientifically valid that leads to that conclusion.

 

[jasoncran]

Does science require that there is a "who" involved? I have never seen anything scientifically valid that leads to that conclusion.

so its ok to assume that the laws that are today always will be and always was? they just popped in, and just are. is that not the same level faith?

we play God on the is earth all the time, why not another more advanced being doing the same with planets?

 

[coelacanth]

jasoncran, I'd be happy to discuss what you brought up, but it doesn't in any way address my question/comment and would be very much off topic in this thread.

so its ok to assume that the laws that are today always will be and always was? they just popped in, and just are. is that not the same level faith?

So the laws "always was", and yet at some point they "just popped in"? Can you please elaborate here? The same level of faith as compared to what exactly? I don't think there's enough information here to give an appropriate reply.

we play God on the is earth all the time, why not another more advanced being doing the same with planets?

Until this conjecture is reformulated into something more specific and testable, we'll have to add it to the list of ideas which cannot be disproven.

 

[jasoncran]

jasoncran, I'd be happy to discuss what you brought up, but it doesn't in any way address my question/comment and would be very much off topic in this thread.




So the laws "always was", and yet at some point they "just popped in"? Can you please elaborate here? The same level of faith as compared to what exactly? I don't think there's enough information here to give an appropriate reply.



Until this conjecture is reformulated into something more specific and testable, we'll have to add it to the list of ideas which cannot be disproven.

the bbt doesnt start with the laws of science being non existent.

so at what zero point is there, if there is a beggining there must an end.

can energy just have popped in.

energy cant be created nor destroyed. so there no possibility of life on other planets that evolved before us and are more advanced. why then seti? we dont know squat on what the universe is.

true its conjecture but to say that the laws always where is an act of faith. i doubt a particle will break the known laws of physics then suddenly act accoridingly when it or what not says it to. dark matter and energy are theoritical in nature and havent been observed.

 

[Asyncritus]

jasoncran, I'd be happy to discuss what you brought up, but it doesn't in any way address my question/comment and would be very much off topic in this thread.

So the laws "always was", and yet at some point they "just popped in"? Can you please elaborate here? The same level of faith as compared to what exactly? I don't think there's enough information here to give an appropriate reply.

Until this conjecture is reformulated into something more specific and testable, we'll have to add it to the list of ideas which cannot be disproven.

There are 2 very serious problems with the scientific method and the question of 'who' did it.

First, it is a basic premise of any scientific experimentation that there is, can be, and will be no divine intervention in the experimental procedures.

That being so, it is not unreasonable that science cannot find the divine. It is excluded from the word 'go'.

But if you begin with the premise that there is no God, and that he does not interfere with experiments, it is hardly surprising that you end with that conclusion.

Therefore, 'scientific results' cannot claim to have excluded the fact that God exists with any degree of reliability. It is a basic ASSUMPTION, and assumptions cannot be regarded as proof.

Secondly, it is very foolish, IMHO at any rate, to state that if a hypothesis cannot be disproven, then it is invalid, or unscientific. That is Popper's idea, and I am not sure how much reliance can be placed on it in this context, given the first point above.

And you are in an infinite loop. If the existence of God cannot be disproved, then it is by that definition, unscientific. But if the scientific method begins with the premise that there is no God, and that He cannot, and does not interfere in experimental procedures, then it is, as I say, hardly surprising that it is forced to that conclusion.

You do, however, have the existence of life to explain.

You do have the multitude of scientifically established facts which demonstrate the unquestionable existence (to take my favourite example) of INSTINCT.

Instinct is the 'thing' on which all life depends. (You may obtain a copy of my book on the subject here: http://www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com)

It is immaterial. It cannot be measured or seen in any laboratory - but it exists, and none can deny its existence.

So where did this immaterial, immeasurable, universal 'thing' come from? If every effect has a cause, then what is the cause of this 'thing'?

The fact that it exists cannot be disproven. The hypothesis that it originated outside of the physical world also cannot be disproven, because it is immaterial and the immaterial is beyond the scientific method's reach.

But it is real, and not a figment of anybody's imagination.

Houston, we have a problem here.

 

[jasoncran]

link to biology isnt working.

 

[jasoncran]

Gauger

The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway

Ann K Gauger, Douglas D Axe


Abstract



Enzymes group naturally into families according to similarity of sequence, structure, and underlying mechanism. Enzymes belonging to the same family are considered to be homologs--the products of evolutionary divergence, whereby the first family member provided a starting point for conversions to new but related functions. In fact, despite their similarities, these families can include remarkable functional diversity. Here we focus not on minor functional variations within families, but rather on innovations--transitions to genuinely new catalytic functions. Prior experimental attempts to reproduce such transitions have typically found that many mutational changes are needed to achieve even weak functional conversion, which raises the question of their evolutionary feasibility. To further investigate this, we examined the members of a large enzyme superfamily, the PLP-dependent transferases, to find a pair with distinct reaction chemistries and high structural similarity. We then set out to convert one of these enzymes, 2-amino-3-ketobutyrate CoA ligase (Kbl2), to perform the metabolic function of the other, 8-amino-7-oxononanoate synthase (BioF2). After identifying and testing 29 amino acid changes, we found three groups of active-site positions and one single position where Kbl2 side chains are incompatible with BioF2 function. Converting these side chains in Kbl2 makes the residues in the active-site cavity identical to those of BioF2, but nonetheless fails to produce detectable BioF2-like function in vivo. We infer from the mutants examined that successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions. But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth. Considering that Kbl2 and BioF2 are judged to be close homologs by the usual similarity measures, this result and others like it challenge the conventional practice of inferring from similarity alone that transitions to new functions occurred by Darwinian evolution.


food for thought.

 

[jasoncran]

the thread is here in the science forum called how does instinct evolve.

hmm if i recall instinct is driven by chance mutations and also the fact the nature lets them survive if they are adaptive enough. the problem here is what i stated above.

But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth

 

[Asyncritus]

link to biology isnt working.

Fixed it:

http://www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com

And jason, instinct isn't driven by chance mutations.

It existed BEFORE the reproductive processes could function.

Mutations are defects somewhere in the cell division process.

But the cell division process had to be functioning BEFORE defects in it could occur! And that functioning depends on the existence of the reproductive instinct - and ToE is back to square one again.

 

[jasoncran]

Fixed it:

http://www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com

And jason, instinct isn't driven by chance mutations.

It existed BEFORE the reproductive processes could function.

Mutations are defects somewhere in the cell division process.

But the cell division process had to be functioning BEFORE defects in it could occur! And that functioning depends on the existence of the reproductive instinct - and ToE is back to square one again.

i know that and i was stating what the toe says.

 

[Asyncritus]

i know that and i was stating what the toe says.

Sorry. Took you literally.

 

[abrown9]

This thread is mind boggling. No matter what your personal beliefs are, I can assure you that a designer is not considered to be a prerequisite for life from the majority of the scientific community. Having "a book" somewhere that you are not sure of its name generally is not considered solid evidence.

Also Crick has been dead for seven years.

 

[Asyncritus]

This thread is mind boggling. No matter what your personal beliefs are, I can assure you that a designer is not considered to be a prerequisite for life from the majority of the scientific community. Having "a book" somewhere that you are not sure of its name generally is not considered solid evidence.

Also Crick has been dead for seven years.

It is entirely possible that the majority of the scientific community is wrong.

There was a time when the majority of the scientific community thought otherwise, as witness people like Sir Isaac Newton, Clerk Maxwell and Lord Kelvin.

Crick may have been dead for 7 years, but the incredible intricacy of the DNA and related molecules lives on.

I utterly fail to see how any reasonable human being could look at that unbelievably complex and ingenious structure and fail to see that is it designed to perform extremely complex functions, and does so faultlessly for most of the time.

Still, there's none so blind as won't see.

 

[jasoncran]

This thread is mind boggling. No matter what your personal beliefs are, I can assure you that a designer is not considered to be a prerequisite for life from the majority of the scientific community. Having "a book" somewhere that you are not sure of its name generally is not considered solid evidence.

Also Crick has been dead for seven years.

darwin dead even longer, and his version of toe with him as in general fossil evidence isnt sufficient. odd none of you addressed my posting of the statement of cellular circuitry and its challenge to darwinism.

 

[abrown9]

It is entirely possible that the majority of the scientific community is wrong.

There was a time when the majority of the scientific community thought otherwise, as witness people like Sir Isaac Newton, Clerk Maxwell and Lord Kelvin.

Crick may have been dead for 7 years, but the incredible intricacy of the DNA and related molecules lives on.

I utterly fail to see how any reasonable human being could look at that unbelievably complex and ingenious structure and fail to see that is it designed to perform extremely complex functions, and does so faultlessly for most of the time.

Still, there's none so blind as won't see.

Certainly there is that possibility, but I was addressing the assertion that the majority of the community thinks in a certain way. Also, the OP said "Crick concluded...." which seems like a powerful statement until you think about the fact that a) he conducted the majority of his research 50 years ago, and b) he is dead. (Also, C) he was an ardent opponent of creationism)

Personally, I fail to see how someone could look at the unbelievable complexity of life and seek to explain it without evolution. As Dobzhansky famously said: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".

People do not give up their views easily, and almost never when confronted with an opposing view from another individual. New views are generally only acquired through personal experience and through force-feeding. I certainly don't think I will change any minds with my posts.

What is important to me is the truth. I have no problem with someone having a personal belief, but take issue when they start espousing utter nonsense that is flat out wrong (eg. the majority of the scientific community believes in a designer). This gives someone attempting to make their own decision a false impression of the issue.

And jason, I know it has been pointed out numerous times that current Evolutionary Biology has moved FAR beyond Darwin. Darwin never even read Mendel's work, so their clearly were some gaping holes in his theory - but the general concepts have provided a framework from which to expand upon.