Can the Genetic Code be simpler?
zoe_althrop
I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and began
to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to rescue
the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
(If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please be so
kind as to repeat them here.)
Original issue:
The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why? All
aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
life forms to grow and take shape.
So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell, and
different cell types have different enzyme sets. The self-catalyzing
ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of other
enzymes needed for growth and development. And these other enzymes are
dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on these
enzymes in order to effect growth.
Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
since RNAs owe their existence to DNA. DNA serves as a template for
all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
The discovery of the Tetrahymena thermophila group I intron, which
indicates a self-catalyzing RNA, starts the study of RNAs at a higher
level of the interdependent genetic code, so to say that this suggests
that RNAs first existed in the primordial soup is to change the laws
that say that RNAs derive from DNA.
So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have been
simpler? If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed in
a single moment of time.
zoe
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sverker Johansson
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> Hello, fellow posters,
>
> I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and began
> to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to rescue
> the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
>
> (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please be so
> kind as to repeat them here.)
>
> Original issue:
>
> The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why? All
> aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
> life forms to grow and take shape.
>
> So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
> idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
>
> There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell, and
> different cell types have different enzyme sets. The self-catalyzing
> ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of other
> enzymes needed for growth and development. And these other enzymes are
> dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on these
> enzymes in order to effect growth.
a) The simplest life forms today make do with a few hundred,
not thousands.
b) Lots of reactions that we use enzymes for _can_ be performed
by ribozymes. For most of the rest we just don't know.
This doesn't prove that they can't.
> Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
> since RNAs owe their existence to DNA. DNA serves as a template for
> all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
> cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
> ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
Here you take the _current_ limited role of RNA as God-given.
There is nothing intrinsic in the RNA that says it needs DNA,
it's just the way we happen to run things today.
[snip]
> So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have been
> simpler?
Yes. It could have been simpler in various ways, the most obvious
being coding for fewer amino acids. Get below 16, and you
can have a _much_ simpler code, with only the first two codon
positions significant.
There's a lot of research being done on the origin
of the genetic code. Here's a list of some references:
http://www.hj.se/~josv/artsubj.htm#bioabiogen
> If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
> evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed in
> a single moment of time.
If it were demonstrably impossible, ok. But if it's just a
matter of us not being able to figure out how it's done,
then it proves more about our limited minds than about
any creation.
--
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Bill Hudson
>
> Hello, fellow posters,
>
> I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and began
> to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to rescue
> the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
>
> (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please be so
> kind as to repeat them here.)
>
> Original issue:
>
> The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why? All
> aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
> life forms to grow and take shape.
False on its face. Proof: The 'genetic code' of a bacteria is very
different than the 'genetic code' of a human. Yet both are alive.
Therefore not 'all aspects of the genetic code have to exist
simultaneously'.
Maybe you'd better re-state your premise.
[snipped]
>
> So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have been
> simpler? If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
> evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed in
> a single moment of time.
>
define 'simpler'.
The human genome is fraught with duplications, non-coding areas, and
areas which obviously *used* to do something but no longer do anything.
I forget the percentage on humans, but it is something amazingly large.
I also know that bacteria have similar genetic 'faults'. I dont know
the percentage of a bacteria genome either, perhaps someone else does.
My point is: we know how these non-coding areas arise. We can watch it
happen in the lab. We know evolutionary processes play a significant
role.
Your question raises the notion of the 'perfect' genome, which is one of
the creationist ideas I hear circulated quite a bit. i.e., God created
everything with 'perfect' genes, but since the fall, we've been
degrading genetically.
Sorry, but there's no evidence of a universal degradation. Some
creationist authors like to point to specific species, and say "look, it
has eyes that don't work, a clear case of degradation!" or something
similar. That is just observational selection. If universal genetic
degradation existed, we'd be able to see it in the fossil record, as
well as being able to see it in fast-reproducing species in the lab.
In either case we see a struggle for existance by adaptation to new
conditions, not degradation.
--
Bill Hudson; Information Systems Manager; Robert Mann Packaging
bi...@rmp.com Office: (408) 848-5440 Voice-Mail: (800) 549-2265
Boikat
>
> Hello, fellow posters,
>
> I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and began
> to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to rescue
> the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
>
> (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please be so
> kind as to repeat them here.)
>
> Original issue:
>
> The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why? All
> aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
> life forms to grow and take shape.
You again assume that the DNA, and "first life"
was as "complex" as modern DNA and modern life, in
general.
>
> So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
> idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
>
> There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell, and
> different cell types have different enzyme sets. The self-catalyzing
> ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of other
> enzymes needed for growth and development. And these other enzymes are
> dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on these
> enzymes in order to effect growth.
>
> Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
> since RNAs owe their existence to DNA. DNA serves as a template for
> all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
> cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
> ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
>
> The discovery of the Tetrahymena thermophila group I intron, which
> indicates a self-catalyzing RNA, starts the study of RNAs at a higher
> level of the interdependent genetic code, so to say that this suggests
> that RNAs first existed in the primordial soup is to change the laws
> that say that RNAs derive from DNA.
>
> So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have been
> simpler? If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
> evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed in
> a single moment of time.
No. If anything, it means we do no have all the
answers and defaulting to "Goddidit!", under any
disguise you want to hang on it (ID, Directed
Panspermia, or Trans Dimensional Life Bringers),
is not a legitimate scientific position, no matter
how much you want to think it is, since "We do not
have all the answers" does not mean "GODDIDIT!" by
default. This has been explained to you before by
several people, and yet you make the same *basic*
mistake, over, and over, and over again.
Boikat
Mark VandeWettering
>Hello, fellow posters,
>
>I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and began
>to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to rescue
>the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
>
>(If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please be so
>kind as to repeat them here.)
>
>Original issue:
>
>The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why? All
>aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
>life forms to grow and take shape.
Don't be vague, define your terms. What are "aspects" of the
genetic code?
>So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
>idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
Which problem?
There are other objections to this idea: namely that you haven't
defined what you mean by "aspect" above, or what "components" of
the genetic code are. You haven't even really defined what you
mean by genetic code, and I believe it to be somewhat different
than the actual scientific use of the term.
>There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell, and
>different cell types have different enzyme sets. The self-catalyzing
>ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of other
>enzymes needed for growth and development. And these other enzymes are
>dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on these
>enzymes in order to effect growth.
Once you are at the level of cells, that might be true. That is
not necessarily true for pre-biotic and biotic precursors. There
is nothing to indicate that these precursors needed thousands of
enzymes to reproduce.
>Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
>since RNAs owe their existence to DNA.
This is simply false. The RNA world theory does not utilize DNA.
>DNA serves as a template for
>all growth,
Today it does.
>but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
>cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
>ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
You simply don't understand the basic ideas behind the reasoning
that RNA preceded DNA.
>The discovery of the Tetrahymena thermophila group I intron, which
>indicates a self-catalyzing RNA, starts the study of RNAs at a higher
>level of the interdependent genetic code, so to say that this suggests
>that RNAs first existed in the primordial soup is to change the laws
>that say that RNAs derive from DNA.
>
>So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have been
>simpler? If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
>evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed in
>a single moment of time.
Remind me again, in the context of irreducible complexity, what are
your "components", what is your "system", and what is its "function"?
Once you have those terms defined, then we have something to argue about.
Mark
>zoe
--
This signature has eight As, two Cs, three Ds, thirty Es, eight Fs, seven
Gs, nine Hs, fourteen Is, four Ks, two Ls, four Ms, nineteen Ns, thirteen Os,
two Ps, fifteen Rs, thirty one Ss, twenty four Ts, seven Us, six Vs, seven
Ws, two Xs, and four Ys. Mark VandeWettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org>
King Carrot
In article <8v0v5s$fgg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Hello, fellow posters,
>
> I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and began
> to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to rescue
> the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
>
> (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please be
so
> kind as to repeat them here.)
>
> Original issue:
>
> The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why? All
> aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
> life forms to grow and take shape.
Published work disagrees with that assertion. Here are some starter
references. For any of these you might try looking it up on
medline and following the link to related references. It's a
quick way to fill a filing cabinet.
Partition of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases in two different structural
classes dating back to early metabolism: implications for the
origin of the genetic code and the nature of protein sequences.
Delarue M.
J Mol Evol. 1995 Dec;41(6):703-11.
Two types of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases could be originally encoded by
complementary strands of the same nucleic acid.
Rodin SN, Ohno S.
Orig Life Evol Biosph. 1995 Dec;25(6):565-89.
Evolution of the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases and the origin of the
genetic code.
Wetzel R.
J Mol Evol. 1995 May;40(5):545-50.
Guilt by association: the arginine case revisited.
Knight RD, Landweber LF
RNA 2000 Apr;6(4):499-510
<<< note: deaddog disagrees >>>
Rhyme or reason: RNA-arginine interactions and the genetic code.
Knight RD, Landweber LF.
Chem Biol. 1998 Sep;5(9):R215-20
In essense, there is evidence for a simpler genetic code, suggestions
that tRNAs may have had previous "relationships" with their cognate
amino acids, and possibilities of ribozyme ligases to attached
amino acids to tRNAs. In that world, proteins are non essential.
> So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
> idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
>
> There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell, and
> different cell types have different enzyme sets. The self-catalyzing
> ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of
other
> enzymes needed for growth and development. And these other enzymes
are
> dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on
these
> enzymes in order to effect growth.
>
> Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
> since RNAs owe their existence to DNA. DNA serves as a template for
> all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
> cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
> ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
>
> The discovery of the Tetrahymena thermophila group I intron, which
> indicates a self-catalyzing RNA, starts the study of RNAs at a higher
> level of the interdependent genetic code, so to say that this suggests
> that RNAs first existed in the primordial soup is to change the laws
> that say that RNAs derive from DNA.
>
> So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have been
> simpler? If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
> evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed in
> a single moment of time.
>
> zoe
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
>
--
Deer foks, Life, is never, dul hear just like
back home in the mines.
Andy Groves
zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Hello, fellow posters,
>
> I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and began
> to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to rescue
> the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
>
> (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please be so
> kind as to repeat them here.)
>
> Original issue:
>
> The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why? All
> aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
> life forms to grow and take shape.
No they don't. This is a totally unwarranted assumption.
> So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
> idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
>
> There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell, and
> different cell types have different enzyme sets. The self-catalyzing
> ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of other
> enzymes needed for growth and development. And these other enzymes are
> dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on these
> enzymes in order to effect growth.
Again, you are assuming that all enzymes were originally required for
life.
> Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
> since RNAs owe their existence to DNA.
Not necessarily. You are being confused by the sitauation today. RNAs do
not require DNA for their synthesis.
> DNA serves as a template for
> all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
> cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
> ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
Incorrect, as stated above.
> The discovery of the Tetrahymena thermophila group I intron, which
> indicates a self-catalyzing RNA, starts the study of RNAs at a higher
> level of the interdependent genetic code, so to say that this suggests
> that RNAs first existed in the primordial soup is to change the laws
> that say that RNAs derive from DNA.
Which laws. You are once again confused.
> So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have been
> simpler?
Yes it is. Current theories of the genetic code's origins suggest that
different components of the code were added gradually, and at some point
the code became fixed.
--
Andy Groves
Donate free food at The Hunger Site -
http://www.thehungersite.com
Howard Hershey
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> Hello, fellow posters,
>
[snip]
>
> So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have been
> simpler?
Short answer is yes. There are a significant number of research
articles and theoretical articles that discuss the origin of the
present 'universal' genetic code. They all start with simpler
systems, often with an initial highly degenerate code that
distinguishes only between hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids.
Subsequent events lead to further differentiation of this initial
crude code and greater distinction between different amino acids.
There are clear selective reasons for evolving a more highly
differentiated code capable of greater distinction between amino acids
-- up to a point. After that point (which depends upon how many
proteins are important and what amino acids they contain) change gets
more difficult and the code gets frozen.
> If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
> evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed in
> a single moment of time.
>
> zoe
>
Dana Tweedy
zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8v0v5s$fgg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hello, fellow posters,
>
> I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and began
> to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to rescue
> the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
Translation: It was getting to hot for me, so I bailed.
>
> (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please be so
> kind as to repeat them here.)
>
> Original issue:
>
> The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why? All
> aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
> life forms to grow and take shape.
Oh zoe, didn't anyone tell you it's bad form to start with a false premise?
Why do you have the idea that all aspects of the code had to have existed at
the same time.
snip of GIGO exposition.
> So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have been
> simpler? If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
> evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed in
> a single moment of time.
Nope, How the first life form began has nothing to do with later evolution
of it's descendants. Goddidit is never a scientific conclusion. BTW, yes,
the genetic code could have been simpler.
Dana J. Tweedy
Gyudon Z
>The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why? All
>aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
>life forms to grow and take shape.
For modern lifeforms perhaps, but there is no reason why irreducibly complex
systems could not have evolved from reducibly complex ones.
>So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
>idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
>There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell, and
>different cell types have different enzyme sets.
Are you so sure that a protobiont would require all two thousand of them?
>The self-catalyzing
>ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of other
>enzymes needed for growth and development.
Are they all really needed? ATP-synthase may be a useful one to have around,
but before DNA was around, helicase and DNA-transcriptase don't seem necessary.
A protobiont probably did not have had a metabolism in the modern sense of the
word, allowing it to add enzymatic functions a few at a time.
>And these other enzymes are
>dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on these
>enzymes in order to effect growth.
Hence the use of RNA, which assembles itself from free nucleotides in solution
without the aid of DNA or enzymes.
>Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
>since RNAs owe their existence to DNA.
No they don't. Miller-Urey-style experiments have created RNA bases,
phosphates, and a number of sugars from scratch. Those are the ingredients of
RNA monomers, and, as noted above, RNA assembles itself spontaneously in
solution.
>DNA serves as a template for
>all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
>cannot function without DNA's instructions.
RNA certainly can function without instructions from DNA. How else could we
inject insulin genes into bacteria to grow insulin?
>At this basic level,
>ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
If they are biological catalysts, they certainly are.
>The discovery of the Tetrahymena thermophila group I intron, which
>indicates a self-catalyzing RNA, starts the study of RNAs at a higher
>level of the interdependent genetic code, so to say that this suggests
>that RNAs first existed in the primordial soup is to change the laws
>that say that RNAs derive from DNA.
They aren't actually physical laws, you know...
>So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have been
>simpler?
Probably. Single-stranded RNA doesn't require helicase or ligase the way the
double helix DNA does.
> If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
>evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed in
>a single moment of time.
Non sequitur.
"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
Vincent Maycock
"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8v0v5s$fgg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hello, fellow posters,
>
> I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and began
> to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to rescue
> the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
Fossil evolutionary sequences and nested hierarchies in the genome show that
evolution has occurred.
> (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please be so
> kind as to repeat them here.)
Your YEC beliefs are refuted by the evidence.
> Original issue:
>
> The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why? All
> aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
> life forms to grow and take shape.
>
> So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
> idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
Your idea is wrong on strictly logical grounds. You simply haven't been able
to rule out simpler precursors systems lacking in the present IC
characteristics that you're talking about. And it's far more plausible that
such precursor systems existed at one time, than it is that God magically
caused things to appear out of nowhere. We have evidence for processes that
involve simple precursors systems. There is no evidence for God, however, so
the former is the better hypothesis. There is some empirical support for the
idea that the genetic code was at one time far simpler than it is now; for
example, studies of t-RNA, which is thought to be one of the oldest
molecules around, have reconstructed the "original" DNA sequence of this
molecule, and found that it is highly rich in guanine and cytosine, which
are precisely the nucleotides which are more stable in an open environment.
So it appears that the earliest RNA sequences retained traces of a time
before life began, when resistance to being knocked apart by the harsh
environment in which the genetic code was presumably forming.
> There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell,
You really mean, "There are not less than 2,000 enzymes and possibly more
than 3,000 enzymes." Your statement as written is equivalent to the simpler
statement, "There are over 3,000 enzymes." Not that it's terribly
significant, of course :-)
> and
> different cell types have different enzyme sets. The self-catalyzing
> ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of other
> enzymes needed for growth and development. And these other enzymes are
> dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on these
> enzymes in order to effect growth.
It's all incredibly sophisticated; absolutley incredibly sophisticated
machinery. But I see no reason whatsoever to think it was always like that.
What we see now is most plausibly explained by the gradual emergence of
sophistication and interdependence as part of various evolutionary processes
like selection for increases in efficiency, where a component is originally
not necessary, but over time, the organism becomes more and more dependent
on it until it finally can't live without it. This sort of thing is known to
have happened with systems that are known to have evolved, e.g., the blood
clotting system, where we have molecular evidence that an essentially IC
system developed gradually.
> Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
> since RNAs owe their existence to DNA. DNA serves as a template for
> all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
> cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
> ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
No, as I understand it, short sequences of RNA can form without the help of
DNA, a few hundred base pairs long or so. From there, it would be a matter
of natural selection acting on these primitive RNA replicators, molding them
towards more efficient replication, greater stability, and, ultimately,
presumably in the direction of complexity great enough to sustain life.
> The discovery of the Tetrahymena thermophila group I intron, which
> indicates a self-catalyzing RNA, starts the study of RNAs at a higher
> level of the interdependent genetic code,
Nonsense.
> so to say that this suggests
> that RNAs first existed in the primordial soup is to change the laws
> that say that RNAs derive from DNA.
That is not a law; it's just the way living things happen to be set up right
now.
> So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have been
> simpler?
Sure. What would be wrong with a genetic code that coded for just one amino
acid, rather than many? Over time, an ensemble of different "codons" could
develop. Or did you have specific questions about the development of
specific forms of molecular machinery?
> If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
> evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed in
> a single moment of time.
If you had shown this, which you have not come remotely close to showing,
this would not indicate that God was involved. But it would indicate
something rather odd about the universe, which might well provide a feeling
of warm fuzziness in some way. It would indicate that the something about
the universe is "interested" in living things, either consciously, or as a
result of the sheer fact of the way the laws of nature are arranged. It
would be as if the laws of gravity were affected by whether or not you
decided to go shopping one day. So I don't know if an idea as specific as
"God" would have been our first guess, if your ideas had turned out to be
correct, although obviously such a concept would not be ruled out as
decisively by principles like parsimony, as it is now.
--
Vince
Andy Groves
> > simpler?
>
> articles and theoretical articles that discuss the origin of the
> present 'universal' genetic code. They all start with simpler
> systems, often with an initial highly degenerate code that
> distinguishes only between hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids.
It's important for people like Zoe and Charlie to realize that although
the current 20 amino acids are all unique, they do fall into different
groups as Howard points out. Hydrophobic, hydrophilic, acidic, basic,
small R groups, bulky R groups and so on. There is no absolute
requirement for all 20 to exist from teh beginning.
> Subsequent events lead to further differentiation of this initial
> crude code and greater distinction between different amino acids.
> There are clear selective reasons for evolving a more highly
> differentiated code capable of greater distinction between amino acids
> -- up to a point. After that point (which depends upon how many
> proteins are important and what amino acids they contain) change gets
> more difficult and the code gets frozen.
>
Indeed. There are a bunch of papers that deal with this, but I only have
a couple of them, so I can't add much more than that at the moment.
--
Andy Groves
Donate free food at The Hunger Site -
http://www.thehungersite.com
Adam Noel Harris
:> I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and began
:> to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to rescue
:> the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
:> (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please be so
:> kind as to repeat them here.)
:> Original issue:
:>
:> The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why? All
:> aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
:> life forms to grow and take shape.
:False on its face. Proof: The 'genetic code' of a bacteria is very
:different than the 'genetic code' of a human. Yet both are alive.
:simultaneously'.
:
:Maybe you'd better re-state your premise.
I think she's talking about the mapping of DNA nucleotide triplets to
amino acids in proteins. That is the more scientific use of the term
"genetic code." In popular media, "genetic code" has been confused with
"genome."
[snip]
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
Christopher Peters
zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Hello, fellow posters,
>
>I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and began
>to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to rescue
>the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
>
>(If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please be so
>kind as to repeat them here.)
>
>Original issue:
>
>The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why? All
>aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
>life forms to grow and take shape.
>
The genetic and abiogenesis are not incompatible. It is not necessary
for all the components to appear at once, thee can be synthesized
sequentially.
[snip]
>So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have been
>simpler? If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
>evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed in
>a single moment of time.
>
I imagine it is possible for the genetic code to have been simpler.
You are presenting a false dichotomy, Zoe.
What evidence do you have for beliving that life "appeared fully formed
in a single moment of time"?
>zoe
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
>
--
Chris Peters (cpe...@world.std.com)
"Real programmers don't use mice."
sc...@home.com
>
>"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8v0v5s$fgg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> Hello, fellow posters,
>>
>> I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and began
>> to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to rescue
>> the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
>
>Fossil evolutionary sequences and nested hierarchies in the genome show that
>evolution has occurred.
>
there are no nested hierarchies in the genome.
Scott
sc...@home.com
>In article <3A140EC3...@indiana.edu>,
>> >
>> > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have been
>> > simpler?
>>
>> articles and theoretical articles that discuss the origin of the
>> present 'universal' genetic code. They all start with simpler
>> systems, often with an initial highly degenerate code that
>> distinguishes only between hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids.
>
>It's important for people like Zoe and Charlie to realize that although
>the current 20 amino acids are all unique, they do fall into different
>groups as Howard points out. Hydrophobic, hydrophilic, acidic, basic,
>small R groups, bulky R groups and so on. There is no absolute
>requirement for all 20 to exist from teh beginning.
>
But there is also no absolute requirement that the
coding for the current 20 amino acids existed from
the beginning either.
So one has to evolve the additional codings, and one
has to evolve the additional amino acids.
However, doesn't the evidence indicate that as far as
we are able to determine all 20 current amino acids
would be found in the earliest life?
iow, what living organisms are you aware of that do
not utilize all 20 amino acids?
Scott
Syvanen
>
> I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and began
> to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to rescue
> the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
>
so
> kind as to repeat them here.)
>
> Original issue:
>
> The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why? All
> aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
> life forms to grow and take shape.
Not true. It is relatively straightforward to isolate
mutants that have changed their genetic code. You will
find this described in molecular genetic textbooks under
UAA, UAG or UGA suppressors or maybe informational or
amber and ocher suppressors.
This means that "all aspects of the genetic code [DO NOT] have
to exist simultaneously" since we can change one aspect to
assume a new function.
This is not just a laboratory artifact. We can infer that the
code has become simplified in the mitochondria through a series
of such mutations.
Mike Syvanen
Andy Groves
sc...@home.com wrote:
> In <8v1bnu$r7j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> writes:
> >In article <3A140EC3...@indiana.edu>,
> > hers...@indiana.edu wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> zoe_althrop wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hello, fellow posters,
> >> >
> >> [snip]
> >> >
> >> > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have been
> >> > simpler?
> >>
> >> Short answer is yes. There are a significant number of research
> >> articles and theoretical articles that discuss the origin of the
> >> present 'universal' genetic code. They all start with simpler
> >> systems, often with an initial highly degenerate code that
> >> distinguishes only between hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids.
> >
> >It's important for people like Zoe and Charlie to realize that although
> >the current 20 amino acids are all unique, they do fall into different
> >groups as Howard points out. Hydrophobic, hydrophilic, acidic, basic,
> >small R groups, bulky R groups and so on. There is no absolute
> >requirement for all 20 to exist from teh beginning.
> >
> That's correct, there isn't.
>
> But there is also no absolute requirement that the
> coding for the current 20 amino acids existed from
> the beginning either.
That's exactly what I wrote above!
> So one has to evolve the additional codings, and one
> has to evolve the additional amino acids.
Yes.
> However, doesn't the evidence indicate that as far as
> we are able to determine all 20 current amino acids
> would be found in the earliest life?
Not that I'm aware of. That's the point Howard and I were making above.
The 20 amino acids that are coded for today fall into certain groups,
and it's perfectly possible that in the earliest replicators only a
fraction of the current 20 were commonly used. Moreover, it's also
likely that many amino acids that are not part of the genetic code today
were also being used by the earliest replicators. It is also possible
that some amino acids used today initially arose by ribozyme-mediated
modification, with their subsequent incorporation into the code by the
evolution of an appropriate charging aminoacyl tRNA synthetase.
Some circumstantial evidence to back up this idea of a smaller pool of
amino acids comes from an analysis of aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, which
couple amino acids to tRNA molecules. There are several different
classes of aaRSs, and members of each class are related to one anotehr
at the sequence level.
Let me quote the conclusion of a recent review by Landweber, which I
have been citing for other people (Cell vol 101 pp569-572). She
concludes:
"Together, research into different components of the translation
apparatus is beginning to paint a consistent picture of how the genetic
code might have evolved. The primordial code, influenced by direct
interactions between bases and amino acids probably dates back to the
RNA world or earlier. The invention of tRNAs and ribozyme-based aaRSs
made this mapping indirect, allowing swapping of amino acids between
codons and hence a level of optimization. Additionally, the code
probably underwent a process of expansion from relatively few amino
acids to the modern complement of 20. By the time protein aaRSs took
over, translation was probably well developed; however, some amino
acids, such as Gln, Asn, and Trp, may postdate the first protein aaRSs.
Today, laboratory experiments that alter the specificity of aaRSs for
amino acids and/or tRNA isoacceptors recapitulate some of
these processes. Finally, changes to both tRNAs and release factors
produced the range of modern codes, particularly through
posttranscriptional base modification and changes in release factors.
This diversity of events suggests that an explanation for the fixation
of the canonical code in the LUCA [last universal common ancestor] will
require more historical reconstruction than reasoning
from chemical principles.
> iow, what living organisms are you aware of that do
> not utilize all 20 amino acids?
>
That's something of a non-sequitur. The simplest living organisms today
probably bear very little resemblance to the earliest replicators on
Earth.
--
Andy Groves
Donate free food at The Hunger Site -
http://www.thehungersite.com
lenny
> However, doesn't the evidence indicate that as far as
> we are able to determine all 20 current amino acids
> would be found in the earliest life?
>
> iow, what living organisms are you aware of that do
> not utilize all 20 amino acids?
It would be reasonable to expect the last common ancestor of all living
things to have utilized all 20 amino acids if those same 20 amino acids are
utilized in protein synthesis in all currently living organisms. The
earliest life is not necessarily the last common ancestor of all living
things.
Tim Tyler
: :> The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why? All
: :> aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
: :> life forms to grow and take shape.
: :
: :False on its face. Proof: The 'genetic code' of a bacteria is very
: :different than the 'genetic code' of a human. Yet both are alive.
: :Therefore not 'all aspects of the genetic code have to exist
: :simultaneously'.
: :
: :Maybe you'd better re-state your premise.
: I think she's talking about the mapping of DNA nucleotide triplets to
: amino acids in proteins.
Still there are variations on this in nature. The genetic code is not
universal.
Regardless of this point the assertion that "all aspects of the genetic
code have to exist simultaneously in order for life forms to grow and
take shape" is non-obvious (and completely false IMO).
The OP is not the "proof" it claims to be. From a mistaken premise, any
old garbage can follow.
--
__________ Lotus Artificial Life http://alife.co.uk/ t...@cryogen.com
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://mandala.co.uk/ Free gift.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>Hello, fellow posters,
>
>I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and began
>to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to rescue
>the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
>
>(If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please be so
>kind as to repeat them here.)
>
>Original issue:
>
>The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why? All
>aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
>life forms to grow and take shape.
how do you know this? since there are simple genetic codes (eg
flatworms) and complex ones (us) your argument is wrong.
>
>
>So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have been
>simpler? If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
>evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed in
>a single moment of time.
>
which is wrong. the flatworm has a very simple genetic code. so the
code is not irreducibly complex.
WickedDyno
> In <8v1bnu$r7j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com>
> writes:
> >In article <3A140EC3...@indiana.edu>,
> > hers...@indiana.edu wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> zoe_althrop wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hello, fellow posters,
> >> >
> >> [snip]
> >> >
> >> > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
> >> > been
> >> > simpler?
> >>
> >> Short answer is yes. There are a significant number of research
> >> articles and theoretical articles that discuss the origin of the
> >> present 'universal' genetic code. They all start with simpler
> >> systems, often with an initial highly degenerate code that
> >> distinguishes only between hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids.
> >
> >It's important for people like Zoe and Charlie to realize that although
> >the current 20 amino acids are all unique, they do fall into different
> >groups as Howard points out. Hydrophobic, hydrophilic, acidic, basic,
> >small R groups, bulky R groups and so on. There is no absolute
> >requirement for all 20 to exist from teh beginning.
> >
> That's correct, there isn't.
>
> But there is also no absolute requirement that the
> coding for the current 20 amino acids existed from
> the beginning either.
Actually I think that was what he meant.
> So one has to evolve the additional codings, and one
> has to evolve the additional amino acids.
If the amino acids are present in the environment, or in other
organisms, one doesn't have to.
> However, doesn't the evidence indicate that as far as
> we are able to determine all 20 current amino acids
> would be found in the earliest life?
Since we don't have the earliest life around to test, no, there is no
indication that all of them were present.
> iow, what living organisms are you aware of that do
> not utilize all 20 amino acids?
It could be that all current organisms share a common ancestor after all
20 amino acids and their coding structure had developed.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
WickedDyno
> In <3a142fbd$0$63615$45be...@newscene.com>, "Vincent Maycock"
> <maycock...@andrews.edu> writes:
> >
> >"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:8v0v5s$fgg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> Hello, fellow posters,
> >>
> >> I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and began
> >> to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to rescue
> >> the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
> >
> >Fossil evolutionary sequences and nested hierarchies in the genome show
> >that
> >evolution has occurred.
> >
> There are no fossil evolutionary sequences and
> there are no nested hierarchies in the genome.
Wrong, and wrong.
sc...@home.com
><sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a147...@news1.prserv.net...
>
>> we are able to determine all 20 current amino acids
>> would be found in the earliest life?
>>
>> not utilize all 20 amino acids?
>
>things to have utilized all 20 amino acids if those same 20 amino acids are
>utilized in protein synthesis in all currently living organisms. The
>earliest life is not necessarily the last common ancestor of all living
>things.
>
parsimonious explanation of the data.
Scott
sc...@home.com
>In article <3a147...@news1.prserv.net>, sc...@home.com wrote:
>
>> In <3a142fbd$0$63615$45be...@newscene.com>, "Vincent Maycock"
>> <maycock...@andrews.edu> writes:
>> >
>> >news:8v0v5s$fgg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> >> Hello, fellow posters,
>> >>
>> >> I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and began
>> >> to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to rescue
>> >> the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
>> >
>> >Fossil evolutionary sequences and nested hierarchies in the genome show
>> >that
>> >evolution has occurred.
>> >
>> there are no nested hierarchies in the genome.
>
>Wrong, and wrong.
>
genome looks like, and where it can be found
in the genome.
Please describe what a fossil evolutionary sequence
looks like, and where one can be found.
Scott
lenny
> >It would be reasonable to expect the last common ancestor of all living
> >things to have utilized all 20 amino acids if those same 20 amino acids
are
> >utilized in protein synthesis in all currently living organisms. The
> >earliest life is not necessarily the last common ancestor of all living
> >things.
> >
> No, but that would seem to me to be the most
> parsimonious explanation of the data.
How so?
WickedDyno
The most parsimonious explanation would be that the last common ancestor
of all currently living organisms had a 20-AA coding system. All life
forms living today share certain features -- DNA, ribosomes, cytochrome
c, etc. -- that would presumably not be present in the first life form.
Faker
sc...@home.com wrote:
> Please describe what a nested hierarchy in the
> genome looks like, and where it can be found
> in the genome.
You know very well what is meant.
> Please describe what a fossil evolutionary sequence
> looks like, and where one can be found.
You have raised semantic pedantry to new heights.
There are no nested hierarchies in my genome. However, if you compare
my genome with, say, a chimpanzee's, a lemur's, and a rhinoceros'
genome, the branching phylogenetic structure of descent becomes obvious
and undeniable (prove me wrong, deny it).
As for your second objection: there are plenty of these. What's wrong
with the horse series, for example?
>
> Scott
>
>
--
Faker
"This Snow Crash thing--is it a virus, a drug, or a religion?"
Juanita shrugs. "What's the difference?"
Neal Stephenson, _Snow Crash_
mel turner
How so? The _most recent_ common ancestor of all _currently living_
organisms could/would well have lived a very long time after the
first forms of life.
Lots of evolutionary trees have that form: an old clade with an
early diversity of extinct branches replaced by a later radiation
of a single surviving lineage [e.g.s, Neornithes, Mammalia].
Parsimony does let us argue that features present in all extant
forms of life would have been traits also present in their last
common ancestors, but that doesn't at all mean that the first
life would have had all the same features.
cheers
mel turner
>In <amg39.REMOVETHIS-4E...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid>
>>> >Fossil evolutionary sequences and nested hierarchies in the genome show
>>> >that evolution has occurred.
>>> >
>>> There are no fossil evolutionary sequences and
>>> there are no nested hierarchies in the genome.
>>
>>Wrong, and wrong.
>>
>Please describe what a nested hierarchy in the
>genome looks like, and where it can be found
>in the genome.
It's the "in the" that bothers you?
There are nested hierarchical patterns among genomes.
There are nested hierarchies found by cladistic analyses
of genomic traits.
[There can also be nested hierarchies within one genome,
with regard to gene families]
>Please describe what a fossil evolutionary sequence
>looks like, and where one can be found.
It looks like analyses of comparative data among fossil
[and living] specimens. One might try looking for such in
scientific journals and paleontology texts, and in natural
history museums.
cheers
Vincent Maycock
<sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a14c...@news1.prserv.net...
Or, you could do that, since you know the answers to your questions. You're
just trying to aggrevate people; and that's not cool.
--
Vince
Adam Noel Harris
That's because logic, the one thing you were supposed to be able to
contribute to this newsgroup, is not your strong suit.
Maybe you should revise your t.o title to pedant of semantics.
Andy Groves
There is no data of which I'm aware that suggests that all 20 extant
amino acids were found in the earliest forms of life on Earth. What is
your data?
--
Andy Groves
Donate free food at The Hunger Site -
http://www.thehungersite.com
Andy Groves
sc...@home.com wrote:
> Please describe what a fossil evolutionary sequence
> looks like, and where one can be found.
I seem to recall talking with you about the evolution of the horse last
June. Do you remember?
Howard Hershey
sc...@home.com wrote:
>
> In <3a14...@news.sentex.net>, "lenny" <le...@sentex.net> writes:
> ><sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a147...@news1.prserv.net...
> >
> >> However, doesn't the evidence indicate that as far as
> >> we are able to determine all 20 current amino acids
> >> would be found in the earliest life?
I would guess that *most* were available via abiogenic processes.
And, if the early uses of proteins were not crucially dependent upon
which of several amino acids were used in a particular site (as is
still true, of course, of proteins today), a synthetase that did not
discriminate between, say, alanine, valine, isoleucine, and leucine,
would still be useful. Duplication and specialization of the system
to identify and position these amino acids more specifically would
permit new proteins where those positions were more often clearly
specified. Once these proteins existed, there would be selection
against making the system less precise.
> >>
> >> iow, what living organisms are you aware of that do
> >> not utilize all 20 amino acids?
> >
> >It would be reasonable to expect the last common ancestor of all living
> >things to have utilized all 20 amino acids if those same 20 amino acids are
> >utilized in protein synthesis in all currently living organisms. The
> >earliest life is not necessarily the last common ancestor of all living
> >things.
> >
> No, but that would seem to me to be the most
> parsimonious explanation of the data.
I can certainly understand why you would wish that biologists agreed
with your idea that the LCA of all current life must be the simplest
form of 'life' to have ever existed. It would give you an obvious
strawman to attack, and it is always easier to beat a strawman
distortion of an argument than the real argument. Which probably is
why you keep trying.
Alas, *you* seem to be the only person who thinks that to be the most
parsimonious explanation of the data. The arguments I would give
against your 'most parsimonious' explanation would undoubtedly be
quite similar to yours. Except you would like to leap to the false
conclusion that if this 'most parsimonious' explanation were not true,
then "goddidit", "God made the LCA by magic".
WickedDyno
Others have beaten me to the punch, but I'll repeat what they have said,
condensed and paraphrased:
If you don't know this, why are you bothering to pretend you understand
evolutionary theory? Do you own damn homework. Besides, you've
discussed these things at length in other threads.
sc...@home.com
>
><sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a14c...@news1.prserv.net...
>just trying to aggrevate people; and that's not cool.
>
I'm trying to point out that your preferred method of
argument by assertion really accomplishes very little
in convincing anyone of the truth of your claims.
You were the original claimant to whom I responded.
You wrote:
"Fossil evolutionary sequences and nested hierarchies
in the genome show that evolution has occurred."
Why, and how, do they show this?
And what difference does it make, since zoe no doubt
already agrees that the frequency of certain alleles
can change in a population?
But how and why do fossils and genomes display this?
Scott
sc...@home.com
>In article <3a14b...@news1.prserv.net>, sc...@home.com wrote:
>
>> In <3a14...@news.sentex.net>, "lenny" <le...@sentex.net> writes:
>> ><sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a147...@news1.prserv.net...
>> >
>> >> However, doesn't the evidence indicate that as far as
>> >> we are able to determine all 20 current amino acids
>> >> would be found in the earliest life?
>> >>
>> >> iow, what living organisms are you aware of that do
>> >> not utilize all 20 amino acids?
>> >
>> >It would be reasonable to expect the last common ancestor of all living
>> >things to have utilized all 20 amino acids if those same 20 amino acids
>> >are
>> >utilized in protein synthesis in all currently living organisms. The
>> >earliest life is not necessarily the last common ancestor of all living
>> >things.
>> >
>> No, but that would seem to me to be the most
>> parsimonious explanation of the data.
>
>The most parsimonious explanation would be that the last common ancestor
>of all currently living organisms had a 20-AA coding system. All life
>forms living today share certain features -- DNA, ribosomes, cytochrome
>c, etc. -- that would presumably not be present in the first life form.
>
in the first life form" is because of your evolutionary dogma.
You have no actual _evidence_ that indicates that it was
not present in the first life form, do you?
And all of the actual evidence that we *do* have points
to it's presence, as you pointed out.
You are forced by your evolutionary beliefs to argue that
the last common ancestor of all life was not the earliest
life, which is an additional hypothesis that is not necessary
to explain the data.
Scott
sc...@home.com
>In article <3a14b...@news1.prserv.net>, sc...@home.com wrote...
>organisms could/would well have lived a very long time after the
>first forms of life.
>
>Lots of evolutionary trees have that form: an old clade with an
>early diversity of extinct branches replaced by a later radiation
>of a single surviving lineage [e.g.s, Neornithes, Mammalia].
>
>Parsimony does let us argue that features present in all extant
>forms of life would have been traits also present in their last
>common ancestors, but that doesn't at all mean that the first
>life would have had all the same features.
>
You are compelled to argue that the first life was somehow
different than the "_most recent_ common ancestor of all
_currently living_ organisms."
What is your evidence that this was the case?
Scott
lenny
> >Parsimony does let us argue that features present in all extant
> >forms of life would have been traits also present in their last
> >common ancestors, but that doesn't at all mean that the first
> >life would have had all the same features.
> >
> That's right.
>
> You are compelled to argue that the first life was somehow
> different than the "_most recent_ common ancestor of all
> _currently living_ organisms."
>
> What is your evidence that this was the case?
Dude, nobody is insisting it has to be the case, just pointing out that it's
quite possible and therefore your argument doesn't demonstrate that the
first life must have used all 20 amino acids. Since there is no necessity
that the first life is also the most recent common ancestor of all things
alive today, the fact that all things alive today use all 20 amino acids
does not necessarily imply that the first life did. If you want to make
that case then you are going to need more evidence.
mel turner
>In <8v2qpb$ghp$1...@news.duke.edu>, mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel turner) writes:
>>In article <3a14b...@news1.prserv.net>, sc...@home.com wrote...
>>How so? The _most recent_ common ancestor of all _currently living_
>>organisms could/would well have lived a very long time after the
>>first forms of life.
>>
>>Lots of evolutionary trees have that form: an old clade with an
>>early diversity of extinct branches replaced by a later radiation
>>of a single surviving lineage [e.g.s, Neornithes, Mammalia].
>>
>>Parsimony does let us argue that features present in all extant
>>forms of life would have been traits also present in their last
>>common ancestors, but that doesn't at all mean that the first
>>life would have had all the same features.
>>
>That's right.
>
>You are compelled to argue that the first life was somehow
>different than the "_most recent_ common ancestor of all
>_currently living_ organisms."
No, I'm not compelled to argue thus at all. It nevertheless
seems likely that the two were quite different both in time
and in traits.
>What is your evidence that this was the case?
It's not my claim, so a possible lack of evidence isn't
a problem. My point is, there's no evidence that they
would have been the same, and there is no reason at all
to suppose they should be.
Still, actual evidence on this point could be imagined:
Obviously there can be no surviving earlier branches of
life than 'the MRCA of all extant life' that would available
for comparisons*, but molecular-clock type analyses of extant
life could show for example that this MRCA would have existed
much later than many of the early Precambrian microfossils.
Thus we'd have evidence of a diversity of different forms of
early life before the date of this MRCA. It's still unlikely
we'd ever get any direct evidence for different patterns of
amino acid use among early life, barring breakthroughs in
chemical analysis of early fossils.
*Of course we could always discover that some groups of
extant life [maybe newly discovered or obscure and overlooked
in previous analyses] are actually much earlier branches off
the common stem to all other life. Such organisms could show
more direct evidence of different biochemical patterns among
the early branches of life.
cheers
Wade Hines
sc...@home.com wrote:
> The _only_ reason that it would "presumably not be present
> in the first life form" is because of your evolutionary dogma.
> You have no actual _evidence_ that indicates that it was
> not present in the first life form, do you?
No that's not true. References have been presented many times
about the nature of the genetic code and the nature of type
I and type II amino acyl transferases. They are suggestive
of a simpler genetic code.
> And all of the actual evidence that we *do* have points
> to it's presence, as you pointed out.
No, as per above.
Further, it is rather capricious to suppose that the last common
ancestor would be the simplest from of life. If one looks at
the fossile record and the extent of extinction, it would be
rather absurd to posit that the last common ancestor was the
first life form.
> You are forced by your evolutionary beliefs to argue that
> the last common ancestor of all life was not the earliest
> life, which is an additional hypothesis that is not necessary
> to explain the data.
It's so hard to pick through the mine field of misinformation
but I think that the same evidence that supports evolution
supports a more parsimonious first life form(s) that were far
simpler than the last common ancestor.
Wade Hines
lenny wrote:
>
> <sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a159...@news1.prserv.net...
>
> > >Parsimony does let us argue that features present in all extant
> > >forms of life would have been traits also present in their last
> > >common ancestors, but that doesn't at all mean that the first
> > >life would have had all the same features.
> > >
> > That's right.
> >
> > You are compelled to argue that the first life was somehow
> > different than the "_most recent_ common ancestor of all
> > _currently living_ organisms."
> >
> > What is your evidence that this was the case?
>
> Dude, nobody is insisting it has to be the case, just pointing out that it's
> quite possible and therefore your argument doesn't demonstrate that the
> first life must have used all 20 amino acids.
Dude, I would say that the evidence suggests that evolution produced the
current genetic code from a simpler starting point. In fact, that
evidence
is quite strong based no the relationships between various amino acyl
synthetases. Those relationships would argue against evolution if there
had not been precursor to the current genetic code. There really are
only
two choices, either the currrent code evolved from simpler beginnings or
it was designed by someone with very limited creativity.
> Since there is no necessity
> that the first life is also the most recent common ancestor of all things
> alive today, the fact that all things alive today use all 20 amino acids
> does not necessarily imply that the first life did. If you want to make
> that case then you are going to need more evidence.
The evidence is strongly against the first life form using all 20 AAs.
jack_s...@my-deja.com
sc...@home.com wrote:
> In <8v2qpb$ghp$1...@news.duke.edu>, mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu (mel
turner) writes:
> >In article <3a14b...@news1.prserv.net>, sc...@home.com wrote...
> >organisms could/would well have lived a very long time after the
> >first forms of life.
> >
> >Lots of evolutionary trees have that form: an old clade with an
> >early diversity of extinct branches replaced by a later radiation
> >of a single surviving lineage [e.g.s, Neornithes, Mammalia].
> >
> >forms of life would have been traits also present in their last
> >common ancestors, but that doesn't at all mean that the first
> >life would have had all the same features.
> >
> That's right.
>
> You are compelled to argue that the first life was somehow
> different than the "_most recent_ common ancestor of all
> _currently living_ organisms."
>
> What is your evidence that this was the case?
>
>
The Miller-Urey experiment and later work on prebiotic chemistry yielded
13 of the simpler amino acids, such as glycine, valine, leucine, etc.
These would have been the raw materials available for the earliest
stages of peptide and protein chemistry. More elaborate amino acids,
such as histidine, arginine and lysine require discrete enzymatic
reactions in order to produce them from simpler cellular products. The
biochemistry here has been well worked out years ago. If you need
evidence (such as references and a knowledge of chemistry/biochemistry),
go to your nearest college chemistry library.
Jack Sullivan
lenny
news:3A1615E3...@rcn.com...
> Dude, I would say that the evidence suggests that evolution produced the
> current genetic code from a simpler starting point. In fact, that
> evidence
> is quite strong based no the relationships between various amino acyl
> synthetases. Those relationships would argue against evolution if there
> had not been precursor to the current genetic code. There really are
> only
> two choices, either the currrent code evolved from simpler beginnings or
> it was designed by someone with very limited creativity.
Dude, don't get your panties in a bunch! Why don't you point this at Scott
where it belongs?
zoe_althrop
Sverker Johansson <l...@hlk.no.hj.spam.se> wrote:
>
>
> zoe_althrop wrote:
> >
> > Hello, fellow posters,
> >
> > I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and
began
> > to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to
rescue
> > the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
> >
be so
> > kind as to repeat them here.)
> >
> > Original issue:
> >
> > The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
All
> > aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order
for
> > life forms to grow and take shape.
> >
> > idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
> >
> > There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell, and
> > different cell types have different enzyme sets. The self-
catalyzing
> > ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of
other
> > enzymes needed for growth and development. And these other enzymes
are
> > dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on
these
> > enzymes in order to effect growth.
>
> a) The simplest life forms today make do with a few hundred,
> not thousands.
>
whether a few hundred or in the thousands, the same principle should
hold true -- that the functions of the genetic code are interdependent
and cannot produce growth without each other.
> b) Lots of reactions that we use enzymes for _can_ be performed
> by ribozymes. For most of the rest we just don't know.
> This doesn't prove that they can't.
>
really, Sverker? I thought that ribozymes were responsible only for
self-excision. Are you maybe referring to reactions in a lab setting,
in which ribozymes are used for cleavage experimentally, or are you
suggesting that ribozymes are able to catalyze the widely varying and
specialized functions of protein production and growth in the body,
something after the order of a super-RNA? If they originally had the
function of super RNAs, why would the thousands of other enzymes need
to evolve? This certainly does not answer to parsimony.
> > Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
> > since RNAs owe their existence to DNA. DNA serves as a template for
> > all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
> > cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
> > ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
>
> Here you take the _current_ limited role of RNA as God-given.
> There is nothing intrinsic in the RNA that says it needs DNA,
> it's just the way we happen to run things today.
>
> [snip]
>
who is the "we" that are running things today? And don't scientists
determine the past by the way things are today?
> > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
been
> > simpler?
>
> Yes. It could have been simpler in various ways, the most obvious
> being coding for fewer amino acids. Get below 16, and you
> can have a _much_ simpler code, with only the first two codon
> positions significant.
>
quantity of amino acids should not be the issue. Whatever number of
amino acids get coded for, it still takes the interaction of the DNA
and RNAs to produce useful, protein-building amino acids. Unless, once
again, you are saying that we cannot understand the past via the
present?
> There's a lot of research being done on the origin
> of the genetic code. Here's a list of some references:
> http://www.hj.se/~josv/artsubj.htm#bioabiogen
>
it's clear there is a LOT of study going on. Have they yet discovered
a differently functioning genetic code in the past than today? Have
they observed evidence of a genetic system where DNA and RNA do not
need each other, and that protein building and specialized growth can
occur in a different setting? No. There IS some imaginative
speculation as to how it could possibly have been in the beginning, but
speculation is just that, speculation, not science.
> > If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
> > evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed
in
> > a single moment of time.
>
> If it were demonstrably impossible, ok.
by the "way we run things today," it IS demonstrably impossible. Until
and when new data arises that could change our understanding of how the
world operates, do we not use the standard of judging the past by the
present? Or are we selective about what we want the present to reflect
upon the past?
> But if it's just a
> matter of us not being able to figure out how it's done,
> then it proves more about our limited minds than about
> any creation.
>
and until it can be figured out, it is premature to rule out an
intelligent Creator. To do so is to reveal a highly unscientific
prejudice that says, "I have already made up my mind that there can be
no God, regardless of what is figured out in the future."
zoe
zoe_althrop
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> zoe_althrop wrote:
> >
> > Hello, fellow posters,
> >
> > I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and
began
> > to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to
rescue
> > the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
> >
> > (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please
be so
> > kind as to repeat them here.)
> >
> > Original issue:
> >
> > The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
All
> > aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order
for
> > life forms to grow and take shape.
>
> was as "complex" as modern DNA and modern life, in
> general.
>
isn't it a principle of science that conclusions are drawn about the
past due to what we observe today? On what authority, other than an
over-active imagination, do we decide that the genetic code was
different? To dismantle it and try to make up other ways in which
growth and development took place is pure speculation and should be
recognized as such.
> >
> > So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
> > idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
> >
> > There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell, and
> > different cell types have different enzyme sets. The self-
catalyzing
> > ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of
other
> > enzymes needed for growth and development. And these other enzymes
are
> > dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on
these
> > enzymes in order to effect growth.
> >
> > Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
> > since RNAs owe their existence to DNA. DNA serves as a template for
> > all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
> > cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
> > ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
> >
> > The discovery of the Tetrahymena thermophila group I intron, which
> > indicates a self-catalyzing RNA, starts the study of RNAs at a
higher
> > level of the interdependent genetic code, so to say that this
suggests
> > that RNAs first existed in the primordial soup is to change the laws
> > that say that RNAs derive from DNA.
> >
> > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
been
> > simpler? If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
> > evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed
in
> > a single moment of time.
>
> No. If anything, it means we do no have all the
> answers and defaulting to "Goddidit!", under any
> disguise you want to hang on it (ID, Directed
> Panspermia, or Trans Dimensional Life Bringers),
> is not a legitimate scientific position, no matter
> how much you want to think it is, since "We do not
> have all the answers" does not mean "GODDIDIT!" by
> default. This has been explained to you before by
> several people, and yet you make the same *basic*
> mistake, over, and over, and over again.
>
and as I've said before, when we do not have all the answers, then a
move to prematurely exclude intelligence as one of the answers reveals
an unacceptable prejudice that bespeaks an agenda that does not include
scientific honesty.
GenNem
<snip>
> > You again assume that the DNA, and "first life"
> > was as "complex" as modern DNA and modern life, in
> > general.
> >
>
> isn't it a principle of science that conclusions are drawn about the
> past due to what we observe today? On what authority, other than an
> over-active imagination, do we decide that the genetic code was
> different? To dismantle it and try to make up other ways in which
> growth and development took place is pure speculation and should be
> recognized as such.
Let me play around with that a little :)
Isn't it a principle of science that conclusions are drawn about the past
based upon the assumption that the laws of physics and chemistry are the
same today as they were in the past? On what authority other than an
over-active imagination, do we decide that the genetic code was created? To
dismantle it and try to make up other ways in which magical creation took
place is pure speculation and should be recognized as such.
<snip>
> >
> > No. If anything, it means we do no have all the
> > answers and defaulting to "Goddidit!", under any
> > disguise you want to hang on it (ID, Directed
> > Panspermia, or Trans Dimensional Life Bringers),
> > is not a legitimate scientific position, no matter
> > how much you want to think it is, since "We do not
> > have all the answers" does not mean "GODDIDIT!" by
> > default. This has been explained to you before by
> > several people, and yet you make the same *basic*
> > mistake, over, and over, and over again.
> >
>
> and as I've said before, when we do not have all the answers, then a
> move to prematurely exclude intelligence as one of the answers reveals
> an unacceptable prejudice that bespeaks an agenda that does not include
> scientific honesty.
No one is excluding anything other than those things for which there is no
evidence. God in the Gaps is not science and is shallow theology.
--
GenNem
"You have to realize that someday you will die. Until you know that, you
are useless." Tyler Durden - Fight Club
Vincent Maycock
<sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a159...@news1.prserv.net...
> In <3a151edb$0$63617$45be...@newscene.com>, "Vincent Maycock"
<maycock...@andrews.edu> writes:
> >
> ><sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:3a14c...@news1.prserv.net...
You're
> >just trying to aggrevate people; and that's not cool.
> >
> No, Vince,
>
> I'm trying to point out that your preferred method of
> argument by assertion really accomplishes very little
> in convincing anyone of the truth of your claims.
Well, right, if you're going to try to aggravate people, you damn well
better try to back yourself up, i.e., CYA, otherwise people won't like you.
But I don't think anyone is buying your claims to attempt to "better the
newsgroup" with your trashy questions. Nobody finds them interesting,
helpful, or enlightening in any way. They're just a nuisance, no less and no
more. If you like living as a parasite on other people's pet peeves, and you
like people saying, "There goes scott@home, that disgusting little brat
that's always worming into people's pet peeves to cause problems," then go
ahead and be that way. But *I* wouldn't want to be you. If I'm going to
aggravate people, I'm going to make damn sure they can't prove I'm doing it,
see? (not that I would ever try to aggravate people, of course; it's just
that, *if* I were to do that, I would make sure that people couldn't prove
it)
> You were the original claimant to whom I responded.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Fossil evolutionary sequences
This is nonsense (and by that I mean your attempts to troll, rather than
your quote of me, here); just shut up and go away. Nobody likes you, nobody
wants to hear from, nobody *cares* about your stupid questions. They're not
funny, they're not cute, and they don't stimulate thinking, particularly.
They're just aggrevating. Got that? Basically, I'm going to review your
posts for today later on, and if I don't see improvement in your behavior
(i.e., less deliberately aggrevating statements), I'll probably drag you
through the dirt publically once or twice to make sure everyone knows how
dumb your ideas are. That ought to take the edge off of your aggravation
game, if my comments above have not already done so. Also, I've been meaning
to tell you, since you are almost certainly a theist, given your behaviors,
I must point out that the evidence suggests that theism is false, even
though I do not dislike theism. I'll be pointing that out to you as often as
I can in the near future to help encourage you to stop your nonsense (since
no theist is able to defend his foolish and inferior beliefs against logical
scrutiny).
--
Vince
zoe_althrop
ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2000 10:40:51 -0500, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >Hello, fellow posters,
> >
> >I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and began
> >to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to
rescue
> >the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
> >
so
> >kind as to repeat them here.)
> >
> >Original issue:
> >
> >The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
All
> >aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
> >life forms to grow and take shape.
>
> genetic code?
>
those aspects that contribute to growth and development -- DNA, RNAs,
enzymes, specialized functions of proteins that derive their behaviors
from instructions from the DNA, the need for exact copying of the
original instructions in order for heredity to be perpetuated
successfully.
> >So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
> >idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
>
> Which problem?
>
the problem of harmonizing the complex and irreducible structure of the
genetic code with a reduced system as found in abiogenesis, which seems
to imply that the genetic code evolved through a growth process that
excluded all of the components of growth as we know it today, except
RNAs, which, apparently once did not need instructions on how to form
themselves.
> There are other objections to this idea: namely that you haven't
> defined what you mean by "aspect" above, or what "components" of
> the genetic code are. You haven't even really defined what you
> mean by genetic code, and I believe it to be somewhat different
> than the actual scientific use of the term.
>
well, did the above answers help your objections?
> >There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell, and
> >different cell types have different enzyme sets. The self-catalyzing
> >ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of
other
> >enzymes needed for growth and development. And these other enzymes
are
> >dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on
these
> >enzymes in order to effect growth.
>
> Once you are at the level of cells, that might be true. That is
> not necessarily true for pre-biotic and biotic precursors. There
> is nothing to indicate that these precursors needed thousands of
> enzymes to reproduce.
>
and there also is NOTHING to indicate that these precursors did not
need thousands of enzymes to reproduce. This is pure speculation and
should be recognized as such, shouldn't it?
> >Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
> >since RNAs owe their existence to DNA.
>
> This is simply false. The RNA world theory does not utilize DNA.
>
I recognize that the RNA world theory does not utilize DNA. Any theory
can be woven out of whole cloth, apparently, but will it work? So far,
no. It remains unfounded speculation. I suppose I could do a better
job of speculating and at least start with a DNA world, which would at
least allow the DNA to issue instructions and create RNAs that would
start the growth process. However, there is no proof, either, of DNAs
existing alone in a prebiotic world.
> >DNA serves as a template for
> >all growth,
>
> Today it does.
>
why not yesterday? Is it because there is a need to stretch the
supposedly evolving fossils into a fuzzy lineage extending over
billions of years, and, therefore, we cannot have DNA serving as a
template billions of years ago, for then growth and development would
be rapid rather than slow? And am I supposed to accept this
speculation as more factual than any other?
> >but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
> >cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
> >ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
>
> You simply don't understand the basic ideas behind the reasoning
> that RNA preceded DNA.
>
tell me those basic ideas behind the reasoning, then. I'm listening.
> >The discovery of the Tetrahymena thermophila group I intron, which
> >indicates a self-catalyzing RNA, starts the study of RNAs at a higher
> >level of the interdependent genetic code, so to say that this
suggests
> >that RNAs first existed in the primordial soup is to change the laws
> >that say that RNAs derive from DNA.
> >
> >So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have been
> >simpler? If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
> >evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed
in
> >a single moment of time.
>
> Remind me again, in the context of irreducible complexity, what are
> your "components", what is your "system", and what is its "function"?
> Once you have those terms defined, then we have something to argue
about.
>
components: DNA, RNA, amino acids, enzymes, proteins, start-and-stop
codons, exons, introns, for starters.
system: the genetic code.
function: growth and development, dependent upon many varying proteins
and protein behaviors produced by the masterplan found in the DNA.
zoe_althrop
King Carrot <kingc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> In article <8v0v5s$fgg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Hello, fellow posters,
> >
> > I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and
began
> > to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to
rescue
> > the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
> >
> > (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please be
> so
> > kind as to repeat them here.)
> >
> > Original issue:
> >
> > The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
All
> > aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order
for
> > life forms to grow and take shape.
>
> references. For any of these you might try looking it up on
> medline and following the link to related references. It's a
> quick way to fill a filing cabinet.
>
> Partition of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases in two different structural
> classes dating back to early metabolism: implications for the
> origin of the genetic code and the nature of protein sequences.
> Delarue M.
> J Mol Evol. 1995 Dec;41(6):703-11.
>
> Two types of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases could be originally encoded by
> complementary strands of the same nucleic acid.
> Rodin SN, Ohno S.
> Orig Life Evol Biosph. 1995 Dec;25(6):565-89.
>
> Evolution of the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases and the origin of the
> genetic code.
> Wetzel R.
> J Mol Evol. 1995 May;40(5):545-50.
>
> Guilt by association: the arginine case revisited.
> Knight RD, Landweber LF
> RNA 2000 Apr;6(4):499-510
> <<< note: deaddog disagrees >>>
>
> Rhyme or reason: RNA-arginine interactions and the genetic code.
> Knight RD, Landweber LF.
> Chem Biol. 1998 Sep;5(9):R215-20
>
I've looked up the aminoacyl-tRNA concept and it still does not deal
with the fact that RNA, as we know it today, derives its existence from
DNA. This concept tries to force the RNA to behave as the DNA would.
Having started the scenario from the point of already existing RNA, it
takes it for granted that the RNA must be self-existent. The aminoacyl-
tRNA synthetase is an enzyme which attaches the correct amino acid for
the tRNA to the acceptor stem at the 3' end of the molecule. But the
aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase would not be able to do this work if the mRNA
was not functioning, and the mRNA would not be able to do its work if
the DNA was not coding and instructing for the RNA.
> In essense, there is evidence for a simpler genetic code, suggestions
> that tRNAs may have had previous "relationships" with their cognate
> amino acids, and possibilities of ribozyme ligases to attached
> amino acids to tRNAs. In that world, proteins are non essential.
>
then you are speaking of a proteinless world where growth and
development was non-essential. Without growth and development,
evolution is a moot point, indeed, never got started.
zoe_althrop
> >
> > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
been
> > simpler?
>
> articles and theoretical articles that discuss the origin of the
> present 'universal' genetic code.
all speculation so far, I hope you will acknowledge.
> They all start with simpler
> systems, often with an initial highly degenerate code that
> distinguishes only between hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids.
> Subsequent events lead to further differentiation of this initial
> crude code and greater distinction between different amino acids.
all necessary speculation in order to make abiogenesis continue to fly.
> There are clear selective reasons for evolving a more highly
> differentiated code capable of greater distinction between amino acids
> -- up to a point. After that point (which depends upon how many
> proteins are important and what amino acids they contain) change gets
> more difficult and the code gets frozen.
>
are you saying that evolution has ceased, now that the code is frozen?
zoe_althrop
Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8v0v5s$fgg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Hello, fellow posters,
> >
> > I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and
began
> > to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to
rescue
> > the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
> >
> > (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please
be so
> > kind as to repeat them here.)
> >
> > Original issue:
> >
> > The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
All
> > aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order
for
> > life forms to grow and take shape.
>
>
why unwarranted? I am basing the above, not on assumption, but on
reality and fact. This is what we see today. What would be a truly
unwarranted assumption would be to say that what we see today was not
so yesterday.
> > So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
> > idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
> >
> > There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell, and
> > different cell types have different enzyme sets. The self-
catalyzing
> > ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of
other
> > enzymes needed for growth and development. And these other enzymes
are
> > dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on
these
> > enzymes in order to effect growth.
>
> Again, you are assuming that all enzymes were originally required for
> life.
>
not assuming. This is the way life successfully operates today. It is
an unwarranted assumption to say that life could successfully operate
on less than today's requirements. We see today that whenever there is
a disruption (mutation) in the genetic code's activities, that life is
not enhanced, but decreased. Far worse for removing any of the parts
of the whole.
> > Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
> > since RNAs owe their existence to DNA.
>
> Not necessarily. You are being confused by the sitauation today. RNAs
do
> not require DNA for their synthesis.
>
authority for saying this?
> > DNA serves as a template for
> > all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
> > cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
> > ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
>
> Incorrect, as stated above.
>
basis?
> > The discovery of the Tetrahymena thermophila group I intron, which
> > indicates a self-catalyzing RNA, starts the study of RNAs at a
higher
> > level of the interdependent genetic code, so to say that this
suggests
> > that RNAs first existed in the primordial soup is to change the laws
> > that say that RNAs derive from DNA.
>
> Which laws. You are once again confused.
>
I am referring to the laws that are in place today in a genetic code
that operates consistently, repetitively, reliably, the way systems do
when operating under a law or laws.
> > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
been
> > simpler?
>
> Yes it is. Current theories of the genetic code's origins suggest that
> different components of the code were added gradually, and at some
point
> the code became fixed.
>
these theories are unproven and thus remain in the category of rank
speculation. And are you, too, saying that evolution has ceased? A
fixed code would prevent any further evolution, I would think.
zoe_althrop
Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <3A140EC3...@indiana.edu>,
> hers...@indiana.edu wrote:
> >
> >
> > zoe_althrop wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, fellow posters,
> > >
> > [snip]
> > >
been
> > > simpler?
> >
> > articles and theoretical articles that discuss the origin of the
> > systems, often with an initial highly degenerate code that
> > distinguishes only between hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids.
>
although
> the current 20 amino acids are all unique, they do fall into different
> groups as Howard points out. Hydrophobic, hydrophilic, acidic, basic,
> small R groups, bulky R groups and so on. There is no absolute
> requirement for all 20 to exist from teh beginning.
>
whether all 20 existed from the beginning or not, whatever few
supposedly existed would still need the instructions from the main
processing center, the DNA.
zoe_althrop
GenNem <REMOVEsa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> zoe_althrop wrote:
> >
> > In article <3A140B60...@bellsouth.net>,
> > Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > You again assume that the DNA, and "first life"
> > > was as "complex" as modern DNA and modern life, in
> > > general.
> > >
> >
> > isn't it a principle of science that conclusions are drawn about the
> > past due to what we observe today? On what authority, other than an
> > over-active imagination, do we decide that the genetic code was
> > different? To dismantle it and try to make up other ways in which
> > growth and development took place is pure speculation and should be
> > recognized as such.
>
> Let me play around with that a little :)
>
> Isn't it a principle of science that conclusions are drawn about the
past
> based upon the assumption that the laws of physics and chemistry are
the
> same today as they were in the past? On what authority other than an
> over-active imagination, do we decide that the genetic code was
created?
you're jumping the gun here. I am simply asking the question: can the
genetic code be simpler and still function? Are abiogenesis and the
genetic code ompatible? That is as far as I have gone on this point.
> To
> dismantle it
where have I dismantled it, GenNem? I have left it intact.
> and try to make up other ways in which magical creation took
> place is pure speculation and should be recognized as such.
>
please list these other ways in which I have said some magical creation
took place?
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > No. If anything, it means we do no have all the
> > > answers and defaulting to "Goddidit!", under any
> > > disguise you want to hang on it (ID, Directed
> > > Panspermia, or Trans Dimensional Life Bringers),
> > > is not a legitimate scientific position, no matter
> > > how much you want to think it is, since "We do not
> > > have all the answers" does not mean "GODDIDIT!" by
> > > default. This has been explained to you before by
> > > several people, and yet you make the same *basic*
> > > mistake, over, and over, and over again.
> > >
> >
> > and as I've said before, when we do not have all the answers, then a
> > move to prematurely exclude intelligence as one of the answers
reveals
> > an unacceptable prejudice that bespeaks an agenda that does not
include
> > scientific honesty.
>
> No one is excluding anything other than those things for which there
is no
> evidence. God in the Gaps is not science and is shallow theology.
>
Except I am not talking about a God in the Gaps. And since you have
introduced the topic of God here, I will respond in kind and say that
there IS evidence of God in the non-gaps. And as each gap gets filled
in, it will produce further evidence of an intelligent Creator.
GenNem
>
> In article <3A140EC3...@indiana.edu>,
> hers...@indiana.edu wrote:
> >
> >
> > zoe_althrop wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, fellow posters,
> > >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
> been
> > > simpler?
> >
> > Short answer is yes. There are a significant number of research
> > articles and theoretical articles that discuss the origin of the
> > present 'universal' genetic code.
>
>
> > systems, often with an initial highly degenerate code that
> > distinguishes only between hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids.
> > crude code and greater distinction between different amino acids.
>
> all necessary speculation in order to make abiogenesis continue to fly.
There is speculation then there is speculation.
http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/pages/science/RNA.html
http://web.wi.mit.edu/bartel/pub/
http://www.foresight.org/EOC/EOC_Chapter_2.html
http://www.chemie.unibas.ch/OC/Strazewski/habi.html
It took about 10 minutes in Google to find those links and I don't even
know that. much about molecular biology.
[snip]
zoe_althrop
64ACC8.004...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
> In article <3a14b...@news1.prserv.net>, sc...@home.com wrote:
>
> > In <3a14...@news.sentex.net>, "lenny" <le...@sentex.net> writes:
> > ><sc...@home.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > >> However, doesn't the evidence indicate that as far as
> > >> we are able to determine all 20 current amino acids
> > >> would be found in the earliest life?
> > >>
> > >> iow, what living organisms are you aware of that do
> > >> not utilize all 20 amino acids?
> > >
> > >It would be reasonable to expect the last common ancestor of all
living
> > >things to have utilized all 20 amino acids if those same 20 amino
acids
> > >are
> > >utilized in protein synthesis in all currently living organisms.
The
> > >earliest life is not necessarily the last common ancestor of all
living
> > >things.
> > >
> > No, but that would seem to me to be the most
> > parsimonious explanation of the data.
>
ancestor
> of all currently living organisms had a 20-AA coding system. All
life
> forms living today share certain features -- DNA, ribosomes,
cytochrome
form.
>
your explanation is parsimonious up to the last common ancestor of all
currently living organisms that had a 20-Aa coding system. However,
beyond that you enter a speculative world that is an extravaganza of
twists and turns and maybes and possiblys and should be's and ought to
be's, in order to somehow bring us to the present parsimonious
explanation.
GenNem
Its a parody. Of course if you have some science which can explain how the
code came about in its present form then by all means lets hear it. So far
all I can tell is your argument is basically a false dichotomy.
>
> > To
> > dismantle it
>
> where have I dismantled it, GenNem? I have left it intact.
Parody. Did you notice I just slightly reworded your original response back
to you? The irony of your comments were just to much to resist.
>
> > and try to make up other ways in which magical creation took
> > place is pure speculation and should be recognized as such.
> >
>
> please list these other ways in which I have said some magical creation
> took place?
So you aren't suggesting a magical creation? What is your non magical
explanation?
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >
> > > > No. If anything, it means we do no have all the
> > > > answers and defaulting to "Goddidit!", under any
> > > > disguise you want to hang on it (ID, Directed
> > > > Panspermia, or Trans Dimensional Life Bringers),
> > > > is not a legitimate scientific position, no matter
> > > > how much you want to think it is, since "We do not
> > > > have all the answers" does not mean "GODDIDIT!" by
> > > > default. This has been explained to you before by
> > > > several people, and yet you make the same *basic*
> > > > mistake, over, and over, and over again.
> > > >
> > >
> > > and as I've said before, when we do not have all the answers, then a
> > > move to prematurely exclude intelligence as one of the answers
> reveals
> > > an unacceptable prejudice that bespeaks an agenda that does not
> include
> > > scientific honesty.
> >
> > No one is excluding anything other than those things for which there
> is no
> > evidence. God in the Gaps is not science and is shallow theology.
> >
>
> Except I am not talking about a God in the Gaps. And since you have
> introduced the topic of God here, I will respond in kind and say that
> there IS evidence of God in the non-gaps. And as each gap gets filled
> in, it will produce further evidence of an intelligent Creator.
God in the Gaps is the generic name for any type of undefined intelligent
entity used as a filler in the gaps of human knowledge. Once upon a time
God in the Gaps explained floods, droughts, death, birth, fertility, luck,
fate, disease etc. Right now one of the few gaps left are the ultimate
origin of the universe and, specifically to this thread, the origin of
modern DNA. I made no reference to any particular religion. What would
Freud say about your response :)
Boikat
> > >
> > > Hello, fellow posters,
> > >
> began
> > > to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to
> rescue
> > > the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
> > >
> > > (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please
> be so
> > > kind as to repeat them here.)
> > >
> > > Original issue:
> > >
> > > The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
> All
> > > aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order
> for
> > > life forms to grow and take shape.
> >
> > was as "complex" as modern DNA and modern life, in
> > general.
> >
>
> isn't it a principle of science that conclusions are drawn about the
> past due to what we observe today?
To a certain logical extent. However, your
"conclusion" is not logical.
> On what authority, other than an
> over-active imagination, do we decide that the genetic code was
> different?
The authority of observation.
> To dismantle it and try to make up other ways in which
> growth and development took place is pure speculation and should be
> recognized as such.
Except when it can be demonstrated in the lab,
which it has.
>
> > >
> > > So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
> > > idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
> > >
> > > There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell, and
> > > different cell types have different enzyme sets. The self-
> catalyzing
> > > ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of
> other
> > > enzymes needed for growth and development. And these other enzymes
> are
> > > dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on
> these
> > > enzymes in order to effect growth.
> > >
> > > Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
> > > since RNAs owe their existence to DNA. DNA serves as a template for
> > > all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
> > > cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
> > > ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
> > >
> > > The discovery of the Tetrahymena thermophila group I intron, which
> > > indicates a self-catalyzing RNA, starts the study of RNAs at a
> higher
> > > level of the interdependent genetic code, so to say that this
> suggests
> > > that RNAs first existed in the primordial soup is to change the laws
> > > that say that RNAs derive from DNA.
> > >
> > > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
> been
> > > simpler? If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
> > > evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed
> in
> > > a single moment of time.
> >
> > No. If anything, it means we do no have all the
> > answers and defaulting to "Goddidit!", under any
> > disguise you want to hang on it (ID, Directed
> > Panspermia, or Trans Dimensional Life Bringers),
> > is not a legitimate scientific position, no matter
> > how much you want to think it is, since "We do not
> > have all the answers" does not mean "GODDIDIT!" by
> > default. This has been explained to you before by
> > several people, and yet you make the same *basic*
> > mistake, over, and over, and over again.
> >
>
> and as I've said before, when we do not have all the answers, then a
> move to prematurely exclude intelligence as one of the answers reveals
> an unacceptable prejudice that bespeaks an agenda that does not include
> scientific honesty.
It would be scientifically dishonest to assume a
creator by the same token.
zoe_althrop
> > hers...@indiana.edu wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > zoe_althrop wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello, fellow posters,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
> > been
> > > > simpler?
> > >
> > > articles and theoretical articles that discuss the origin of the
> > > present 'universal' genetic code.
> >
> > all speculation so far, I hope you will acknowledge.
> >
> > > They all start with simpler
> > > systems, often with an initial highly degenerate code that
> > > distinguishes only between hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino
acids.
> > > Subsequent events lead to further differentiation of this initial
> > > crude code and greater distinction between different amino acids.
> >
> > all necessary speculation in order to make abiogenesis continue to
fly.
>
> There is speculation then there is speculation.
>
> http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/pages/science/RNA.html
and halfway through this article, we find this partial summation:
"So far, we have constructed an unsatisfying picture of the earliest
days of an RNA world: although some prebiotic mechanisms may exist for
the untemplated formation of oligonucleotides, these molecules would
have been short, would have contained a variety of monomers besides
ribotides and could not have been faithfully copied by the template-
directed polymenzation of monomers. Given this model, it is difficult
to imagine the accumulation of RNA sequences necessary for the
Darwinian selection of a multitude of active ribozymes."
but continues on, undaunted:
"Nevertheless, these precursors may have been adequate for the first
critical step in the formation of life: the formation of an RNA
replicase."
I don't particularly care to build my worldview on this type
of "nevertheless" reasoning.
> http://web.wi.mit.edu/bartel/pub/
this does not answer the question of how RNA takes on the functions of
DNA, other than to speculate.
> http://www.foresight.org/EOC/EOC_Chapter_2.html
crystals may be formed out of "chaos" but this is due to laws operating
on and through "chaos." That is why you can depend on crystal
formation always occurring and reoccurring. Laws will do that type of
thing, won't they?
> http://www.chemie.unibas.ch/OC/Strazewski/habi.html
>
lots of assumptions here. And halfway through the article, this
problem is stated:
"A basically more serious problem is the amount of information that can
be carried by organised matter. In reality, there are restrictions to
the choice of available material, because very simple inheritable
information, think of a growing three-dimensional pattern of 010101...
like in a sodium chloride crystal, is not much of an information and,
in this context, does not deserve to be distiguished from random.
Structurally more complicated, less stable material is required for a
reasonable information storage."
in spite of the above serious problem, the author proceeds to build on
the following assumption:
"Let us assume that there still is a big enough choice of available and
suitable structures and the organising process begins. Populations of
more or less exact copies emerge, grow at different rates and, since
energy and monomeric units are essential, compete for their respective
resources. This is where Darwinian selection begins."
I suppose, GenNem, you would like me to build my worldview on this
particular assumption?
zoe_althrop
"Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
>
> zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8v0v5s$fgg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and
began
> > to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to
rescue
> > the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
>
>
that's a mistranslation :-) I hope to get back to the other threads,
maybe this afternoon, but on this thread I was hoping to bring the
focus back to the original point made.
> >
> > (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please
be so
> > kind as to repeat them here.)
> >
> > Original issue:
> >
> > The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
All
> > aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order
for
> > life forms to grow and take shape.
>
> Oh zoe, didn't anyone tell you it's bad form to start with a false
premise?
exactly my point I've been making all along. I think the theory of
macroevolution and the theory of cosmology and abiogenesis are theories
based on a false premise.
> Why do you have the idea that all aspects of the code had to have
existed at
> the same time.
>
I get the idea from what is observed in the real world today. Any
deviation from the code produces mutations, cancers, death, sterility.
The few supposedly beneficial mutations, I would not even classify as
such. I would call them adaptations. And these adaptations certainly
are not "horizontal mutations", whatever that is.
> snip of GIGO exposition.
>
> > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
been
> > simpler? If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
> > evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed
in
> > a single moment of time.
>
> Nope, How the first life form began has nothing to do with later
evolution
> of it's descendants.
it has everything to do with later evolution. If the code was in place
in its full complex form in the beginning, there would be nothing to
evolve, except for the type of adaptations that cause speciation.
>Goddidit is never a scientific conclusion.
neither is "Goddidn'tdoit" a scientific conclusion. So maybe we can
discuss the philosophy and rationale for the two on another thread?
> BTW, yes,
> the genetic code could have been simpler.
>
that is an unsupported assertion.
hrgr...@my-deja.com
The "genetic code" which you keep mentioning is just a mapping of a 64-
point set onto a 20-point set. What is "complex" or "irreducible" about
it ? Just because Behe shanghaied the venerable term "irreducibility"
for his own purposes ?
AFAIK, the smallest current organism functions with a couple of hundred
genes. In any case, which *scientific* alternative for precursors,
arising via a mechanism which is consistent with other established
sciences (mainly physics and chemistry) would you propose ?
All that the RNA hypothesis shows is that abiogenesis is *consistent*
with physics and chemistry.
> > >Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
> > >since RNAs owe their existence to DNA.
> >
> > This is simply false. The RNA world theory does not utilize DNA.
> >
>
> I recognize that the RNA world theory does not utilize DNA. Any
theory
> can be woven out of whole cloth, apparently, but will it work? So
far,
> no. It remains unfounded speculation.
Speculation perhaps, but well-founded in theory and experiment.
I suppose I could do a better
> job of speculating and at least start with a DNA world, which would at
> least allow the DNA to issue instructions
DNA does not issue instructions. It just reacts with transcriptases to
form RNA.
and create RNAs that would
> start the growth process. However, there is no proof, either, of DNAs
> existing alone in a prebiotic world.
Currently, the various abiogenesis hypotheses are intended as *models* -
how it could have happened in a perfectly natural way -, not as firm
statements how abiogenesis *actually* happened.
HRG.
<SNIP>
howard hershey
> > > Hello, fellow posters,
> > >
> > > I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and
> began
> > > to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to
> rescue
> > > the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
> > >
> > > (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please be
> > so
> > > kind as to repeat them here.)
> > >
> > > Original issue:
> > >
> > > The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
> All
> > > aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order
> for
> > > life forms to grow and take shape.
> >
Tell that to the poliovirus.
> This concept tries to force the RNA to behave as the DNA would.
As a genetic code? Sure. And RNA does act as a genetic code in some
viruses.
> Having started the scenario from the point of already existing RNA, it
> takes it for granted that the RNA must be self-existent. The aminoacyl-
> tRNA synthetase is an enzyme which attaches the correct amino acid for
> the tRNA to the acceptor stem at the 3' end of the molecule. But the
> aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase would not be able to do this work if the mRNA
> was not functioning, and the mRNA would not be able to do its work if
> the DNA was not coding and instructing for the RNA.
Why do you keep assuming that only the present system's level of
complexity will do?
>
> > In essense, there is evidence for a simpler genetic code, suggestions
> > that tRNAs may have had previous "relationships" with their cognate
> > amino acids, and possibilities of ribozyme ligases to attached
> > amino acids to tRNAs. In that world, proteins are non essential.
> >
>
> then you are speaking of a proteinless world where growth and
> development was non-essential. Without growth and development,
> evolution is a moot point, indeed, never got started.
Evolution requires an imperfectly self-replicating system and an
environment that allows it to replicate.
>
> zoe
Boikat
>
[snip]
>
> I suppose, GenNem, you would like me to build my worldview on this
> particular assumption?
>
"Base your world view on..."??
Is there something wrong with "basing" one's
"world view" assumption (s) on understanding we do
not understand everything?
Boikat
howard hershey
>
> zoe_althrop wrote:
> >
> > In article <3A140EC3...@indiana.edu>,
> > hers...@indiana.edu wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > zoe_althrop wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello, fellow posters,
> > > >
> > > [snip]
> > > >
> > been
> > > > simpler?
> > >
> > > articles and theoretical articles that discuss the origin of the
> > > present 'universal' genetic code.
> >
> > all speculation so far, I hope you will acknowledge.
Of course. Much science involves speculation of this sort. But it is
speculation backed up with some evidence. Specifically evidence that
indicate that aminoacylsynthetases were not independent creations, but
look like duplications and modifications of a more ancient enzyme (among
other such evidence).
> >
> > > They all start with simpler
> > > systems, often with an initial highly degenerate code that
> > > distinguishes only between hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids.
> > > Subsequent events lead to further differentiation of this initial
> > > crude code and greater distinction between different amino acids.
> >
> > all necessary speculation in order to make abiogenesis continue to fly.
Both the "Goddidit" crowd and scientists are looking at the ways that
abiogenesis (the formation of life from non-life) could have happened.
The "Goddidit" crowd (at least the rather dim literalist kind you seem
to represent) think they *know* how God works (apparently they get
direct private messages from the Big Guy, whereas anyone who disagrees
with them is getting direct private messages from the Big Guy's Evil
Twin) and want to insist that the only possible mechanism by which God
could create life is by magic, poofing whatever the believers want Him
to poof into existence by a simple thought. I, and, obviously, other
scientists, don't see a lot of supporting public evidence either that 1)
the "Goddidit" crowd has any great insight that would lead someone to
believe that God only works the way you want him to work, and 2) that
the only way God works is by magic. Mostly Goddidit gets invoked in
areas of personal ignorance, just as it does in primitive societies.
The floods came -- Goddidit. The stars shine -- Goddidit. The plants
grow -- Goddidit. OTOH, there is this public evidence that indicates a
simpler genetic code than the present one. If you prefer your magical
"goddidit" solution to solutions that have more supporting evidence,
that is your right. You can believe that the formation of water from
hydrogen and oxygen is merely due God poofing water into existence and
causing the other two materials to magically disappear and you can
continue to think that, if you pray hard enough, the next time he could
well produce wine instead. If you are ignorant enough, everything
becomes a miracle. Or you can believe that God works through natural
mechanisms essentially all the time (and even directs the formation of
water from hydrogen and oxygen). Or you can belive that natural
mechanisms work without God. That is the essence of religious belief;
it requires faith in the absence of material evidence. Science, of
course, can only deal with consistent evidenced phenomena and explain
them in natural terms. Science doesn't do miracles well. It treats
them as currently unexplained or partially unexplained events and tries
to come up with naturalistic explanations consistent with the evidence.
So why don't you just say that you hate the fact that *science* does
this because you really *want* a God of Cheap Magic Tricks rather than a
God who works through natural mechanisms because you think the latter is
indistinguishable from no God at all? Why not just say that you prefer
for some things to remain areas of ignorance, because you need these
areas of ignorance to believe in the God of Miracles contrary to nature?
>
> There is speculation then there is speculation.
>
> http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/pages/science/RNA.html
> http://web.wi.mit.edu/bartel/pub/
> http://www.foresight.org/EOC/EOC_Chapter_2.html
> http://www.chemie.unibas.ch/OC/Strazewski/habi.html
>
> It took about 10 minutes in Google to find those links and I don't even
> know that. much about molecular biology.
>
> [snip]
>
howard hershey
>
> In article <3A140EC3...@indiana.edu>,
> hers...@indiana.edu wrote:
> >
> >
> > zoe_althrop wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, fellow posters,
> > >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
> been
> > > simpler?
> >
> > Short answer is yes. There are a significant number of research
> > articles and theoretical articles that discuss the origin of the
> > present 'universal' genetic code.
>
> all speculation so far, I hope you will acknowledge.
>
> > systems, often with an initial highly degenerate code that
> > distinguishes only between hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids.
> > Subsequent events lead to further differentiation of this initial
> > crude code and greater distinction between different amino acids.
>
> all necessary speculation in order to make abiogenesis continue to fly.
>
> > differentiated code capable of greater distinction between amino acids
> > -- up to a point. After that point (which depends upon how many
> > proteins are important and what amino acids they contain) change gets
> > more difficult and the code gets frozen.
> >
>
> are you saying that evolution has ceased, now that the code is frozen?
Not at all. In fact, the genetic code of specific organisms (ciliates)
and, especially, organelles, is not the universal code. The specific
changes seen actually demonstrate why change from the universal code
should be rare to essentially impossible for selective reasons.
zoe_althrop
gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
> From Zoe Althrop:
>
> >The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
All
> >aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
> >life forms to grow and take shape.
>
complex
> systems could not have evolved from reducibly complex ones.
>
the term "irreducibly complex" implies that there can be no functioning
reducibly complex version of the system preceding it.
> >So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
> >idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
>
> >There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell, and
> >different cell types have different enzyme sets.
>
> Are you so sure that a protobiont would require all two thousand of
them?
>
here's a revealing statement on speculative theory re protobionts, as
found in a class lecture.
http://eee.uci.edu/00w/07125/lecture10.html
"The Origin of Life
Before we SPECULATE (caps mine) on how life began, we need to know a
little something about the conditions on earth during and after its
formation."
and then the lesson proceeds to speculate on what it supposedly KNOWS
about the conditions on earth. And there is no evidence proffered for
it being the way it is described, either. Continuing quote --
"The earth was originally molten rock, with hot hydrogen gases,
volcanoes and lightening (sic). It is thought that it took 600 million
years for the earth to cool; all in all, the earth was a pretty
inhospitable place. Geologists call this period the Hadean."
note the words, "it is thought that." Continuing...
"Oxygen in the environment reacted with hydrogen to make water, carbon
to make CO2 and CO, and other elements (Iron and Silicon). The net
result was that the early environment contained very little free
oxygen."
please tell me this is not speculation. What proof is there that this
is necessarily the way the environment was.
"With no oxygen, there was no protection from UV radiation. This means
that UV radiation added a lot of energy to the atmosphere."
this is the science being taught to our students? That UV radiation
was a wonderful source of energy to the atmosphere, with none of the
harmful effects of UVC and UVB radiation, not to mention the
bombardment of neutrons and other particles from cosmic rays?
Continuing --
"When the earth finally cooled, the first atmosphere consisted of water
vapor, carbon-dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen (N2),
methane CH3 and ammonia (NH3)."
I wonder who was there to measure these elements and quantities?
At this point, I've had enough. Why read further to see what other
speculations there are for the protobiont?
> >The self-catalyzing
> >ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of
other
> >enzymes needed for growth and development.
>
> Are they all really needed? ATP-synthase may be a useful one to have
around,
> but before DNA was around, helicase and DNA-transcriptase don't seem
necessary.
how do you know that DNA was not around? More speculation?
> A protobiont probably did not have had a metabolism in the modern
sense of the
> word, allowing it to add enzymatic functions a few at a time.
>
that word "probably" bothers me. Must I change my whole worldview on
the turn of a "probably" or "nevertheless"? These are mere human minds
offering mere human opinions, and somehow, these opinions have become
established as scientific fact and are taught in the classrooms of the
world.
> >And these other enzymes are
> >dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on
these
> >enzymes in order to effect growth.
>
> Hence the use of RNA, which assembles itself from free nucleotides in
solution
> without the aid of DNA or enzymes.
>
you mean, hence the manufactured, fanciful idea of making RNA become
the self-assembler and maker of protein, since it is observed that they
tend to form chains from free nucleotides? Can any of these linkages
produce the type of protein that causes growth and development? No.
> >Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
> >since RNAs owe their existence to DNA.
>
> No they don't. Miller-Urey-style experiments have created RNA bases,
> phosphates, and a number of sugars from scratch. Those are the
ingredients of
> RNA monomers, and, as noted above, RNA assembles itself spontaneously
in
> solution.
>
and is this RNA capable of producing proteins and causing growth and
development? No.
> >DNA serves as a template for
> >all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
> >cannot function without DNA's instructions.
>
> RNA certainly can function without instructions from DNA. How else
could we
> inject insulin genes into bacteria to grow insulin?
>
the gene owes its existence to DNA, and it is manipulated by
intelligence in the injection process.
> >At this basic level,
> >ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
>
> If they are biological catalysts, they certainly are.
>
I said, "yet."
> >The discovery of the Tetrahymena thermophila group I intron, which
> >indicates a self-catalyzing RNA, starts the study of RNAs at a higher
> >level of the interdependent genetic code, so to say that this
suggests
> >that RNAs first existed in the primordial soup is to change the laws
> >that say that RNAs derive from DNA.
>
> They aren't actually physical laws, you know...
>
I didn't know that laws were tangible. Or is this what you mean?
> >So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have been
> >simpler?
>
> Probably. Single-stranded RNA doesn't require helicase or ligase the
way the
> double helix DNA does.
>
it may not require helicase or ligase, but does single-stranded RNA
produce growth and development?
> > If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
> >evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed
in
> >a single moment of time.
>
> Non sequitur.
>
why?
lenny
> > > The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
> All
> > > aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order
> for
> > > life forms to grow and take shape.
> >
> > No they don't. This is a totally unwarranted assumption.
> >
>
> why unwarranted? I am basing the above, not on assumption, but on
> reality and fact. This is what we see today. What would be a truly
> unwarranted assumption would be to say that what we see today was not
> so yesterday.
There is no reason to believe that it has to be that way. The fact that
such a system is ubiquitous is completely compatible with the theory of
common descent from a common ancestor utilizing such a sytem--a theory
supported by the convergence of several strong lines of independent
evidence.
> > Again, you are assuming that all enzymes were originally required for
> > life.
> >
>
> not assuming. This is the way life successfully operates today. It is
> an unwarranted assumption to say that life could successfully operate
> on less than today's requirements. We see today that whenever there is
> a disruption (mutation) in the genetic code's activities, that life is
> not enhanced, but decreased. Far worse for removing any of the parts
> of the whole.
the same mistake
> > > Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
> > > since RNAs owe their existence to DNA.
> >
> > Not necessarily. You are being confused by the sitauation today. RNAs
> do
> > not require DNA for their synthesis.
> >
>
> authority for saying this?
already provided
> > > DNA serves as a template for
> > > all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
> > > cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
> > > ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
> >
> > Incorrect, as stated above.
> >
>
> basis?
already provided
> > > The discovery of the Tetrahymena thermophila group I intron, which
> > > indicates a self-catalyzing RNA, starts the study of RNAs at a
> higher
> > > level of the interdependent genetic code, so to say that this
> suggests
> > > that RNAs first existed in the primordial soup is to change the laws
> > > that say that RNAs derive from DNA.
> >
> > Which laws. You are once again confused.
> >
>
> I am referring to the laws that are in place today in a genetic code
> that operates consistently, repetitively, reliably, the way systems do
> when operating under a law or laws.
There is no reason to invoke the existence of any such 'laws', and no such
laws are recognized (unless you are talking about natural selection itself,
which I rather doubt). The fact that the system using both DNA and RNA is
ubiquitous can be easily explained by common descent from a common ancestor
using such a system and is not evidence of laws requiring such a system.
Once again your logic is hopelessly flawed.
> these theories are unproven and thus remain in the category of rank
> speculation. And are you, too, saying that evolution has ceased? A
> fixed code would prevent any further evolution, I would think.
No, the 'code' is not fixed (what does that even mean?), but the entire
system could be described as being perched on a steep-sloped local peak in
the adptive landscape.
WickedDyno
<zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8v1bnu$r7j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <3A140EC3...@indiana.edu>,
> > hers...@indiana.edu wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > zoe_althrop wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello, fellow posters,
> > > >
> > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
> been
> > > > simpler?
> > >
> > > Short answer is yes. There are a significant number of research
> > > articles and theoretical articles that discuss the origin of the
> > > present 'universal' genetic code. They all start with simpler
> > > systems, often with an initial highly degenerate code that
> > > distinguishes only between hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids.
> >
> > It's important for people like Zoe and Charlie to realize that
> although
> > the current 20 amino acids are all unique, they do fall into different
> > groups as Howard points out. Hydrophobic, hydrophilic, acidic, basic,
> > small R groups, bulky R groups and so on. There is no absolute
> > requirement for all 20 to exist from teh beginning.
> >
>
> whether all 20 existed from the beginning or not, whatever few
> supposedly existed would still need the instructions from the main
> processing center, the DNA.
WHY? Why do you assume that DNA is necessary? Not all life forms today
even use DNA as their hereditary molecule.
Do you have a good argument as to why RNA could NOT have provided the
same role for early life forms, much as it does today for retroviruses
and viroids?
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Ted
[snip]
> that word "probably" bothers me. Must I change my whole worldview on
> the turn of a "probably" or "nevertheless"? These are mere human minds
> offering mere human opinions, and somehow, these opinions have become
> established as scientific fact and are taught in the classrooms of the
> world.
You contradict yourself here. On the one hand, you're objecting to
scientists' use of fudge terms ("probably," "it is thought that," etc.),
pointing out that scientists are working from speculation on these issues,
then objecting that these speculations are taught as scientific fact
when, as you point out, they're clearly being presented as speculations.
To change gears a bit, I'd like to point out something. By your criteria,
_any_ statement of origins, divine or naturalistic, is unworthy
speculation. If we were to develop a full-fledged, lab-verified, robust
theory of abiogenesis on Earth, you would deny it as mere "speculation."
If we were to find a planet upon which an abiogenetic proces were taking
place, and if we were to watch it for about a billion years, _and_ if the
result were life systems chemically identical to life on Earth, you would
dismiss any attempt at generalization as "speculation." If we were to
have a Second Coming (or First, depending on your religious bent) in such
a way that strongly suggested a divine origin for life, by your criteria,
you could (and should, to retain intellectual integrity) deny such an
origin as simple "speculation." Basically, your criteria are so
stringent that only a trip through time to Earth's remote past could
convince you (and even then, I have my doubts).
Nature is offering us tantalizing clues as to how life _might_ have
arisen abiogenetically; nature doesn't seem to be offering any clues that
would lead us in any other direction wrt the origins of life. You can
believe (or not believe) whatever the fudge you want; as for me, I'd like
to see where nature's clues actually lead us.
(BTW, I realize that the easy way out of this would be to say that
everything is as it's always been, that there has been no real changes
since negative eternity. However, just about every field of science,
from astronomy to zoology, suggests that that's just not true.)
Anyway, I'm done with you, Zoe. Your views were originally interesting,
and, for a while, you seemed interested in honest discussion. But, after
two lengthy threads, I'm convinced that you've already made up your mind,
and that you're not open to other possibilities. Have fun.
Ted
zoe_althrop
"Vincent Maycock" <maycock...@andrews.edu> wrote:
snip>
> Fossil evolutionary sequences and nested hierarchies in the genome
show that
> evolution has occurred.
>
I'm awaiting your e-mail that will lay out the language I should use in
discussing this with you.
> > (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please
be so
> > kind as to repeat them here.)
>
> Your YEC beliefs are refuted by the evidence.
>
what does young earth creationism have to do with this thread? I am
not here discussing the God of the Bible. But, evidently, you are.
Vince, I know you have a fixation on winning in everything you do, but
this understandable drive to win can be better channeled into less
critical areas, like, for instance, trying to beat me in a game of
chess -- yaaah, just try :-)
But what if I were to present to you a valid argument (so that you
supposedly lost on your position that there is no God), what do you
have against the benefits of losing? You would then have to figure out
what to do with a God who is not only brilliant, but compassionate, as
evidenced by His created works. And what if you were to find out that
this God wants nothing more than to be your Friend and help you make it
through this present messed-up world to a better one? To have to
acknowledge such a God is not something to dread or fight against.
It's not like I'm saying, if you give up atheism, then you will be
hounded and harassed by an ogre of a God. I submit to you, this is a
God you will love, if you gave Him a chance.
> > Original issue:
> >
> > The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
All
> > aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order
for
> > life forms to grow and take shape.
> >
> > So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
> > idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
>
> Your idea is wrong on strictly logical grounds. You simply haven't
been able
> to rule out simpler precursors systems lacking in the present IC
> characteristics that you're talking about. And it's far more
plausible that
> such precursor systems existed at one time, than it is that God
magically
> caused things to appear out of nowhere.
A God making things magically appear ("magical" because we don't
understand the science of it) is more reasonable and parsimonious a
solution than precursor systems magically appearing and beginning to
self-organize through a long and twisted history of trial and error.
> We have evidence for processes that
> involve simple precursors systems.
please present these systems and explain how they are linked to our
present complex systems.
> There is no evidence for God, however, so
> the former is the better hypothesis. There is some empirical support
for the
> idea that the genetic code was at one time far simpler than it is now;
what is this empirical support? Source?
> for
> example, studies of t-RNA, which is thought to be one of the oldest
> molecules around, have reconstructed the "original" DNA sequence of
this
> molecule, and found that it is highly rich in guanine and cytosine,
which
> are precisely the nucleotides which are more stable in an open
environment.
> So it appears that the earliest RNA sequences retained traces of a
time
> before life began, when resistance to being knocked apart by the harsh
> environment in which the genetic code was presumably forming.
>
nice theory, but pure speculation.
> > There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell,
>
> You really mean, "There are not less than 2,000 enzymes and possibly
more
> than 3,000 enzymes." Your statement as written is equivalent to the
simpler
> statement, "There are over 3,000 enzymes." Not that it's terribly
> significant, of course :-)
>
I suppose I can see it this way, but it could also mean, there are over
2,000 but maybe not as many as 3,000, or, again, there may even be as
many as 3,000.
> > and
> > different cell types have different enzyme sets. The self-
catalyzing
> > ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of
other
> > enzymes needed for growth and development. And these other enzymes
are
> > dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on
these
> > enzymes in order to effect growth.
>
> It's all incredibly sophisticated; absolutley incredibly sophisticated
> machinery. But I see no reason whatsoever to think it was always like
that.
> What we see now is most plausibly explained by the gradual emergence
of
> sophistication and interdependence as part of various evolutionary
processes
> like selection for increases in efficiency, where a component is
originally
> not necessary, but over time, the organism becomes more and more
dependent
> on it until it finally can't live without it. This sort of thing is
known to
> have happened with systems that are known to have evolved, e.g., the
blood
> clotting system, where we have molecular evidence that an essentially
IC
> system developed gradually.
>
you are trying to explain this amazing sophistication that we are now
uncovering by a worldview that is archaic and, frankly, quite rickety
and worn out.
> > Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
> > since RNAs owe their existence to DNA. DNA serves as a template for
> > all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
> > cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
> > ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
>
> No, as I understand it, short sequences of RNA can form without the
help of
> DNA, a few hundred base pairs long or so.
however, these laboratory-created RNA still need specific start-stop
instructions that come from the DNA in order to manufacture specific
proteins. Consider the exons in a chain from the DNA as sentences of
information, and the introns as punctuation that gets interpreted by
the RNA to mean, "excise this intron, excise that intron, and now you
can string the exons together to form the protein intended." Without
the space bar of introns in operation, the exons would be strung
together in incorrect frameshifts and the RNA would not know where to
splice and where not to, and you would end up with strange proteins
that are unable to contribute to growth and development.
> From there, it would be a matter
> of natural selection acting on these primitive RNA replicators,
molding them
> towards more efficient replication, greater stability, and,
ultimately,
> presumably in the direction of complexity great enough to sustain
life.
>
then natural selection would have some serious mutant monsters to
select from, I suppose.
> > The discovery of the Tetrahymena thermophila group I intron, which
> > indicates a self-catalyzing RNA, starts the study of RNAs at a
higher
> > level of the interdependent genetic code,
>
> Nonsense.
>
why is this nonsense?
> > so to say that this suggests
> > that RNAs first existed in the primordial soup is to change the laws
> > that say that RNAs derive from DNA.
>
> That is not a law; it's just the way living things happen to be set
up right
> now.
>
we learn about the past from the way things are in the present, don't
we? Or do we just look at the way things are presently and turn our
backs and launch into a speculative litany that has a godless universe
as its agenda?
> > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
been
> > simpler?
>
> Sure. What would be wrong with a genetic code that coded for just one
amino
> acid, rather than many?
a single amino acid, even if coded for by a diminished DNA, would not
provide for growth and development.
> Over time, an ensemble of different "codons" could
> develop. Or did you have specific questions about the development of
> specific forms of molecular machinery?
>
yes. How does a system assemble itself that obviously contains
authoritative commands to stop and start production?
> > If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
> > evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed
in
> > a single moment of time.
>
> If you had shown this, which you have not come remotely close to
showing,
> this would not indicate that God was involved.
why don't you like God?
> But it would indicate
> something rather odd about the universe, which might well provide a
feeling
> of warm fuzziness in some way. It would indicate that the something
about
> the universe is "interested" in living things, either consciously, or
as a
> result of the sheer fact of the way the laws of nature are arranged.
It
> would be as if the laws of gravity were affected by whether or not you
> decided to go shopping one day. So I don't know if an idea as
specific as
> "God" would have been our first guess, if your ideas had turned out
to be
> correct, although obviously such a concept would not be ruled out as
> decisively by principles like parsimony, as it is now.
>
which is more parsimonious, a single entity who sets things in motion,
or billions of random, chance, trial-and-error twists and turns that
require many tomes of speculative explanations of how these twists and
turns could possible end up producing our present complex world?
jack_s...@my-deja.com
jack_s...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <3a159...@news1.prserv.net>,
> sc...@home.com wrote:
> <snip>
> > >>>> However, doesn't the evidence indicate that as far as
> > >>>> we are able to determine all 20 current amino acids
> > >>>> would be found in the earliest life?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> iow, what living organisms are you aware of that do
> > >>>> not utilize all 20 amino acids?
> > >>>
> > >>>It would be reasonable to expect the last common ancestor of all
> living
> > >>>things to have utilized all 20 amino acids if those same 20 amino
> acids are
> > >>>utilized in protein synthesis in all currently living organisms.
> The
> > >>>earliest life is not necessarily the last common ancestor of all
> living
> > >>>things.
> > >>>
> > >>No, but that would seem to me to be the most
> > >>parsimonious explanation of the data.
> > >
> > >organisms could/would well have lived a very long time after the
> > >first forms of life.
> > >
> > >Lots of evolutionary trees have that form: an old clade with an
> > >early diversity of extinct branches replaced by a later radiation
> > >of a single surviving lineage [e.g.s, Neornithes, Mammalia].
> > >
> > >Parsimony does let us argue that features present in all extant
> > >forms of life would have been traits also present in their last
> > >common ancestors, but that doesn't at all mean that the first
> > >life would have had all the same features.
> > >
> > That's right.
> >
> > You are compelled to argue that the first life was somehow
> > different than the "_most recent_ common ancestor of all
> > _currently living_ organisms."
> >
> > What is your evidence that this was the case?
> >
> > Scott
> >
> The Miller-Urey experiment and later work on prebiotic chemistry
yielded
> 13 or so of the simpler amino acids, such as glycine, valine, leucine,
etc.
> These would have been the raw materials available for the earliest
> stages of peptide and protein chemistry. More elaborate amino acids,
> such as histidine, arginine and lysine require discrete enzymatic
> reactions in order to produce them from simpler cellular products. The
> biochemistry here has been well worked out years ago. If you need
> evidence (such as references and a knowledge of
chemistry/biochemistry),
> go to your nearest college chemistry library.
>
> Jack Sullivan
>
You can add tyrosine, threonine, methionine and tryptophan to the list
of amino acids that were produced secondarily.
Jack Sullivan
lenny
> exactly my point I've been making all along. I think the theory of
> macroevolution and the theory of cosmology and abiogenesis are theories
> based on a false premise.
And what would that premise be?
> > Why do you have the idea that all aspects of the code had to have
> existed at
> > the same time.
> >
>
> I get the idea from what is observed in the real world today. Any
> deviation from the code produces mutations, cancers, death, sterility.
> The few supposedly beneficial mutations, I would not even classify as
> such. I would call them adaptations. And these adaptations certainly
> are not "horizontal mutations", whatever that is.
So mutations are uniformly bad if you define muatation as only those
mutations that are bad? Brilliant.
> it has everything to do with later evolution. If the code was in place
> in its full complex form in the beginning, there would be nothing to
> evolve, except for the type of adaptations that cause speciation.
Which are eactly the same ones that produce 'macroevolution' and explain the
diversity of lie on earth...
> >Goddidit is never a scientific conclusion.
> neither is "Goddidn'tdoit" a scientific conclusion.
Absolutely correct--scientific conclusions should not refer to deity in any
sense, positive or negative.
Mark VandeWettering
That isn't a definition. It is not even really a description. It
remains as vague as the terminology you've use before.
There is also no need for "exact copying" to heredity to be perpetuated.
Indeed, evolution cannot proceed in an environment where exact copies
of genetic material are made.
>> >So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
>> >idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
>> Which problem?
>>
>
>the problem of harmonizing the complex and irreducible structure of the
>genetic code with a reduced system as found in abiogenesis, which seems
>to imply that the genetic code evolved through a growth process that
>excluded all of the components of growth as we know it today, except
>RNAs, which, apparently once did not need instructions on how to form
>themselves.
Ah, the non-existent problem. You've not shown the genetic code
is irreducibly complex, and I warrant you can't in any rigorous
way, because you can't define the components of the genetic code
in a rigorous way that supports the conclusion that the overall
system is irreducibly complex. You have to rely on fuzzy thinking
words like "aspects" of the genetic code. Behe's mousetrap example
is at least concrete: he lists the five components of the mousetrap
which must be present. What are the components of the genetic code
which must all be present for it to function? In particular, how
many are there?
>> There are other objections to this idea: namely that you haven't
>> defined what you mean by "aspect" above, or what "components" of
>> the genetic code are. You haven't even really defined what you
>> mean by genetic code, and I believe it to be somewhat different
>> than the actual scientific use of the term.
>well, did the above answers help your objections?
Not at all.
>
>> >There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell, and
>> >different cell types have different enzyme sets. The self-catalyzing
>> >ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of
>other
>> >enzymes needed for growth and development. And these other enzymes
>are
>> >dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on
>these
>> >enzymes in order to effect growth.
>>
>> Once you are at the level of cells, that might be true. That is
>> not necessarily true for pre-biotic and biotic precursors. There
>> is nothing to indicate that these precursors needed thousands of
>> enzymes to reproduce.
>>
>
>and there also is NOTHING to indicate that these precursors did not
>need thousands of enzymes to reproduce. This is pure speculation and
>should be recognized as such, shouldn't it?
At this level it is. Real theories about abiogenesis deal with these
issues.
>> >Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
>> >since RNAs owe their existence to DNA.
>>
>> This is simply false. The RNA world theory does not utilize DNA.
>>
>
>I recognize that the RNA world theory does not utilize DNA. Any theory
>can be woven out of whole cloth, apparently, but will it work?
Contrary to the belief of sum, the RNA world theory did not develop out
of a vacuum. There is experimental evidence to suggest that it is a
likely precursor to DNA based heredity.
>So far, no. It remains unfounded speculation.
Speculation, but not unfounded.
>I suppose I could do a better
>job of speculating and at least start with a DNA world, which would at
>least allow the DNA to issue instructions and create RNAs that would
>start the growth process. However, there is no proof, either, of DNAs
>existing alone in a prebiotic world.
Ah, that evil proof word again. Science deals with evidence, not proof.
There is evidence that RNA was a precursor, not proof.
>> >DNA serves as a template for
>> >all growth,
>>
>> Today it does.
>>
>
>why not yesterday? Is it because there is a need to stretch the
>supposedly evolving fossils into a fuzzy lineage extending over
>billions of years, and, therefore, we cannot have DNA serving as a
>template billions of years ago, for then growth and development would
>be rapid rather than slow? And am I supposed to accept this
>speculation as more factual than any other?
Ah, so now RNA world is a conspiracy?
You are supposed to examine the evidence. Perhaps you'd like to take a
break and do so now.
>> >but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
>> >cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
>> >ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
>>
>> You simply don't understand the basic ideas behind the reasoning
>> that RNA preceded DNA.
>>
>
>tell me those basic ideas behind the reasoning, then. I'm listening.
The assertion you made above (that DNA cannot function without RNA)
is probably true. The assertion that RNA cannot function without
DNA's instructions is false, since it is possible for RNA to
replicate without the presence of DNA. Even a basic understanding
of the abiogenesis theories you seem to be criticizing would show
you this.
>> Remind me again, in the context of irreducible complexity, what are
>> your "components", what is your "system", and what is its "function"?
>> Once you have those terms defined, then we have something to argue
>about.
>>
>
>components: DNA, RNA, amino acids, enzymes, proteins, start-and-stop
>codons, exons, introns, for starters.
>
>system: the genetic code.
>
>function: growth and development, dependent upon many varying proteins
>and protein behaviors produced by the masterplan found in the DNA.
A nice set of circular definitions. Why is DNA a component? Because
it contains the "masterplan". Why is the function what it is? Because
we want to list DNA as a component.
Mark
>zoe
--
Mark VandeWettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org>
Cogito ergo sum. This signature contains VIII As, IV Cs, III Ds, IX
Es, VII Gs, II Hs, XXXIII Is, IV Ks, II Ls, V Ms, VIII Ns, VII Os, VII
Rs, XXV Ss, VIII Ts, III Us, XV Vs, II Ws, and VIII Xs.
Adam Marczyk
> In article <3A1408FC...@hlk.no.hj.spam.se>,
> Sverker Johansson <l...@hlk.no.hj.spam.se> wrote:
> >
> >
> > zoe_althrop wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, fellow posters,
> > >
> > > I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and
> began
> > > to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to
> rescue
> > > the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
> > >
> > > (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please
> be so
> > > kind as to repeat them here.)
> > >
> > > Original issue:
> > >
> > > The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
> All
> > > aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order
> for
> > > life forms to grow and take shape.
> > >
> > > idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
> > >
> > > different cell types have different enzyme sets. The self-
> catalyzing
> > > ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of
> other
> > > enzymes needed for growth and development. And these other enzymes
> are
> > > dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on
> these
> > > enzymes in order to effect growth.
> >
> > not thousands.
>
> whether a few hundred or in the thousands, the same principle should
> hold true -- that the functions of the genetic code are interdependent
> and cannot produce growth without each other.
What about viruses that don't need DNA to reproduce at all, only RNA?
>
> > b) Lots of reactions that we use enzymes for _can_ be performed
> > by ribozymes. For most of the rest we just don't know.
> > This doesn't prove that they can't.
> >
>
> really, Sverker? I thought that ribozymes were responsible only for
> self-excision. Are you maybe referring to reactions in a lab setting,
> in which ribozymes are used for cleavage experimentally, or are you
> suggesting that ribozymes are able to catalyze the widely varying and
> specialized functions of protein production and growth in the body,
> something after the order of a super-RNA?
You continue to misunderstand, or possibly ignore, the point people keep
trying to make to you. The earliest life forms, that protobionts that
preceded bacteria, were _not the same_ as modern life. They were nowhere
near as complex and could make do with _far_ fewer and less efficient
ribozymes serving the function of enzymes.
If they originally had the
> function of super RNAs, why would the thousands of other enzymes need
> to evolve? This certainly does not answer to parsimony.
Another point that has been repeatedly made to you. Because protein enzymes
could perform a wider variety of tasks and do them far more efficiently than
ribozymes.
> > > Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
> > > since RNAs owe their existence to DNA. DNA serves as a template for
> > > all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
> > > cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
> > > ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
> >
> > Here you take the _current_ limited role of RNA as God-given.
> > There is nothing intrinsic in the RNA that says it needs DNA,
> > it's just the way we happen to run things today.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
>
>
> who is the "we" that are running things today?
All currently existing life.
And don't scientists
> determine the past by the way things are today?
Non sequitur. There is no requirement that the machinery of life in the past
was always exactly the same as it is now.
>
> > > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
> been
> > > simpler?
> >
> > Yes. It could have been simpler in various ways, the most obvious
> > being coding for fewer amino acids. Get below 16, and you
> > can have a _much_ simpler code, with only the first two codon
> > positions significant.
> >
>
> quantity of amino acids should not be the issue. Whatever number of
> amino acids get coded for, it still takes the interaction of the DNA
> and RNAs to produce useful, protein-building amino acids.
No.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list
_uids=11023793&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list
_uids=10937990&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list
_uids=10786841&dopt=Abstract
to name a few.
Unless, once
> again, you are saying that we cannot understand the past via the
> present?
This is still a non sequitur. The fact that we can understand the past
through studying the present does not in any way imply that the past was the
same as the present.
> > There's a lot of research being done on the origin
> > of the genetic code. Here's a list of some references:
> > http://www.hj.se/~josv/artsubj.htm#bioabiogen
> >
>
> it's clear there is a LOT of study going on. Have they yet discovered
> a differently functioning genetic code in the past than today?
"Discovered" meaning what, exactly? DNA doesn't fossilize, you know.
Have
> they observed evidence of a genetic system where DNA and RNA do not
> need each other, and that protein building and specialized growth can
> occur in a different setting? No.
Yes. Go look at those articles, for a start.
There IS some imaginative
> speculation as to how it could possibly have been in the beginning, but
> speculation is just that, speculation, not science.
How deliberately dense can you be? What knowledge are we ever going to have
about the beginning of life other than "speculation?" Of course we're never
going to know for sure how it happened, barring some huge unforeseen
technological advance. But we have plausible hypotheses backed up by some
amount of experimental evidence, which will obviously never be enough for
creationists -- and yet, of course, if we were to synthesize a fully modern
bacterium in a lab, they'd simply say it proves that life can only form
through intelligent design.
> > > If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
> > > evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed
> in
> > > a single moment of time.
> >
> > If it were demonstrably impossible, ok.
>
> by the "way we run things today," it IS demonstrably impossible. Until
> and when new data arises that could change our understanding of how the
> world operates, do we not use the standard of judging the past by the
> present? Or are we selective about what we want the present to reflect
> upon the past?
We have this data. You're just choosing to ignore it.
>
> > But if it's just a
> > matter of us not being able to figure out how it's done,
> > then it proves more about our limited minds than about
> > any creation.
> >
>
> and until it can be figured out, it is premature to rule out an
> intelligent Creator. To do so is to reveal a highly unscientific
> prejudice that says, "I have already made up my mind that there can be
> no God, regardless of what is figured out in the future."
Even after all this time, you continue to display almost complete ignorance
of what it means to be doing science. Have you ever heard the word
"naturalism?" Do you know what it means? Let me give you a hint: It means
supernatural intervention has to be excluded. God is by definition
non-scientific; not necessarily wrong, just non-scientific. This does not
reflect prejudice on the part of scientists. It is a fundamental tenet of
what science is. You can't invoke divine intervention. It's not allowed. As
soon as you say, "And here a miracle happened," you've left science and are
now entering the world of religion. You may not like it, but that's the way
it is. God is a matter of faith, abiogenesis is a matter of science, and
never the twain shall meet.
> zoe
>
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Adam Marczyk
> In article <20001116134025...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
> gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
> > From Zoe Althrop:
> >
> > >The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
> All
> > >aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
> > >life forms to grow and take shape.
> >
> > For modern lifeforms perhaps, but there is no reason why irreducibly
> complex
> > systems could not have evolved from reducibly complex ones.
> >
>
> the term "irreducibly complex" implies that there can be no functioning
> reducibly complex version of the system preceding it.
Um, no. Behe doesn't know what he's talking about. IC means precisely squat.
Here, let me give you a brief example:
Assume that, as a beginning product, we have a biochemical system that
requires two proteins, A and B, to work. If either of these proteins is
absent, the system will still work, but not as efficiently. By Behe's
definition, this is not an IC system.
Suppose a mutation occurs that makes A work much better -- but only in the
presence of B. If B is removed, the extra capability will cease to function.
Since A and B both _are_ present, the system _will_ work better. This is
therefore an advantageous mutation and will be selected for.
Now imagine a selective arms race as the system slowly improves. Both A and
B undergo more small mutations of this type that make them continue to work
more and more efficiently, but only in the presence of the other. Over time,
this effect builds, with each mutation working off the others. Finally, a
state is reached where the system has reached maximum efficiency -- but now,
both proteins are required for it to work. If either is removed, it will
cease to function entirely.
You now have an "irreducibly complex" system.
[snip]
hrgr...@my-deja.com
Zoe, you seem to think that the desirability of X ("wouldn't it be nice
if ..." is in some way evidence for the existence, validity etc. of X.
It ain't so - unless you postulate ab initio a benevolent Supreme Being.
> > > Original issue:
> > >
> > > The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
> All
> > > aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order
> for
> > > life forms to grow and take shape.
> > >
> > > So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
> > > idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
> >
> > Your idea is wrong on strictly logical grounds. You simply haven't
> been able
> > to rule out simpler precursors systems lacking in the present IC
> > characteristics that you're talking about. And it's far more
> plausible that
> > such precursor systems existed at one time, than it is that God
> magically
> > caused things to appear out of nowhere.
>
> A God making things magically appear ("magical" because we don't
> understand the science of it) is more reasonable and parsimonious a
> solution than precursor systems magically appearing
But we have reasonable hypotheses how those precursor systems appeared
in ways which are fully consistent with physics and chemistry. No
magics required.
and beginning to
> self-organize through a long and twisted history of trial and error.
Not so. If you include God (a very complex entity) in your explanation
of complexity, you have to explain the (higher) complexity of God as
well.
Your attempt to explain complexity in nature by postulating an even
more complex God remind me of the old joke:
"How does one quickly acquire a small fortune ?"
"By starting with a large one!"
<snip>
> > No, as I understand it, short sequences of RNA can form without the
> help of
> > DNA, a few hundred base pairs long or so.
>
> however, these laboratory-created RNA still need specific start-stop
> instructions that come from the DNA in order to manufacture specific
> proteins. Consider the exons in a chain from the DNA as sentences of
> information, and the introns as punctuation that gets interpreted by
> the RNA to mean, "excise this intron, excise that intron, and now you
> can string the exons together to form the protein intended." Without
> the space bar of introns in operation, the exons would be strung
> together in incorrect frameshifts and the RNA would not know where to
> splice and where not to, and you would end up with strange proteins
> that are unable to contribute to growth and development.
AFAIK (biologists - please correct me if I'm wrong) the whole intron
business is an invention of eukaryotes - by far not the simplest
lifeforms which *currently* exist.
<snip>
> which is more parsimonious, a single entity who sets things in motion,
> or billions of random, chance, trial-and-error twists and turns that
> require many tomes of speculative explanations of how these twists and
> turns could possible end up producing our present complex world?
I've dealt in another post with the fallacy of attempting to explain
complexity in terms of more complexity.
If your simple view of parsimony was the correct criterion, then my
felino-jovidiesic *) hypothesis (creation of the universe last Thursday
by my cat) should be preferred over your God hypothesis. You are forced
to postulate an additional, otherwise unevidenced entity; there is
independent evidence for the existence of my cat ;-)
HRG.
*) Jovis dies = Jupiter's day!
Andy Groves
zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8v1bnu$r7j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <3A140EC3...@indiana.edu>,
> > >
> > >
> > > zoe_althrop wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello, fellow posters,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
> been
> > > > simpler?
> > >
> > > articles and theoretical articles that discuss the origin of the
> > > present 'universal' genetic code. They all start with simpler
> > > systems, often with an initial highly degenerate code that
> > > distinguishes only between hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids.
> >
> > It's important for people like Zoe and Charlie to realize that
> although
> > the current 20 amino acids are all unique, they do fall into different
> > groups as Howard points out. Hydrophobic, hydrophilic, acidic, basic,
> > small R groups, bulky R groups and so on. There is no absolute
> > requirement for all 20 to exist from teh beginning.
> >
>
> whether all 20 existed from the beginning or not, whatever few
> supposedly existed would still need the instructions from the main
> processing center, the DNA.
>
Not necessarily. Have you bothered to read the other posts in this
thread yet?
The "genetic code" is simply a system of base pairing between nucleic
acid (mRNA today) and other nucleic acids, charged with amino acids
(tRNA today). There is no reason why the origins of such a system have
to be encoded in DNA.
--
Andy Groves
Donate free food at The Hunger Site -
http://www.thehungersite.com
Christopher Peters
zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <3A140B60...@bellsouth.net>,
>began
>> > to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to
>rescue
>> > the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
>> >
>be so
>> > kind as to repeat them here.)
>> >
>> >
>> > The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
>All
>> > aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order
>for
>> > life forms to grow and take shape.
>>
>> was as "complex" as modern DNA and modern life, in
>> general.
>>
>
>
>isn't it a principle of science that conclusions are drawn about the
>over-active imagination, do we decide that the genetic code was
>different? To dismantle it and try to make up other ways in which
>growth and development took place is pure speculation and should be
>recognized as such.
>
>
>> >
>> > So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
>> > idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
>> >
>> > different cell types have different enzyme sets. The self-
>catalyzing
>> > ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of
>other
>> > enzymes needed for growth and development. And these other enzymes
>are
>> > dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on
>these
>> > enzymes in order to effect growth.
>> >
>> > since RNAs owe their existence to DNA. DNA serves as a template for
>> > all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
>> > cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
>> > ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
>> >
>> > indicates a self-catalyzing RNA, starts the study of RNAs at a
>higher
>suggests
>> > that RNAs first existed in the primordial soup is to change the laws
>> > that say that RNAs derive from DNA.
>> >
>been
>> > evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed
>in
>> > a single moment of time.
>>
>> answers and defaulting to "Goddidit!", under any
>> disguise you want to hang on it (ID, Directed
>> Panspermia, or Trans Dimensional Life Bringers),
>> is not a legitimate scientific position, no matter
>> how much you want to think it is, since "We do not
>> have all the answers" does not mean "GODDIDIT!" by
>> default. This has been explained to you before by
>> several people, and yet you make the same *basic*
>> mistake, over, and over, and over again.
>>
>
>
>and as I've said before, when we do not have all the answers, then a
>move to prematurely exclude intelligence as one of the answers reveals
>an unacceptable prejudice that bespeaks an agenda that does not include
>scientific honesty.
Just because we do not have all the answers doesn't mean all explanations
are equally valid. Some are scientific, others are arrived at via other
means. We have no evidence of an intellegience as one of the answer so
we can eliminate it as a hypothesis. It can not be emprically tested,
thus is it discareded by science.
>
>zoe
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
>
--
Chris Peters (cpe...@world.std.com)
"Real programmers don't use mice."
sc...@home.com
>Wade Hines <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
>news:3A1615E3...@rcn.com...
>
>> Dude, I would say that the evidence suggests that evolution produced the
>> current genetic code from a simpler starting point. In fact, that
>> evidence
>> is quite strong based no the relationships between various amino acyl
>> synthetases. Those relationships would argue against evolution if there
>> had not been precursor to the current genetic code. There really are
>> only
>> two choices, either the currrent code evolved from simpler beginnings or
>> it was designed by someone with very limited creativity.
>
>Dude, don't get your panties in a bunch! Why don't you point this at Scott
>where it belongs?
>
Dudes! :-)
Andy Groves
zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <3A140EC3...@indiana.edu>,> > [snip]
> > >
> > > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
> been
> > > simpler?
> >
> > articles and theoretical articles that discuss the origin of the
> > present 'universal' genetic code.
>
If you mean "unsupported by evidence", the answer is no. For example,
aminoacyl tRNA synthetases fall into different classes, and the sequence
homology between members of these classes suggests that they diverged
from a common ancestor. That suggests that there were originally fewer
aaRSs than there are today.
> > They all start with simpler
> > systems, often with an initial highly degenerate code that
> > distinguishes only between hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids.
> > Subsequent events lead to further differentiation of this initial
> > crude code and greater distinction between different amino acids.
>
> all necessary speculation in order to make abiogenesis continue to fly.
Of course. But how would one proceed otherwise?
> > There are clear selective reasons for evolving a more highly
> > differentiated code capable of greater distinction between amino acids
> > -- up to a point. After that point (which depends upon how many
> > proteins are important and what amino acids they contain) change gets
> > more difficult and the code gets frozen.
> >
>
> are you saying that evolution has ceased, now that the code is frozen?
Not at all. Evolution of the code is unlikely to proceed further,
although it is worth pointing out that differences do occur. Ask Mike
Syvanen for more information.
--
Andy Groves
Donate free food at The Hunger Site -
http://www.thehungersite.com
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>In article <3A1408FC...@hlk.no.hj.spam.se>,
> Sverker Johansson <l...@hlk.no.hj.spam.se> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> a) The simplest life forms today make do with a few hundred,
>> not thousands.
>>
>
>whether a few hundred or in the thousands, the same principle should
>hold true -- that the functions of the genetic code are interdependent
>and cannot produce growth without each other.
so the genetic code is not irreducibly complex. and your statement
that it is is meaningless
yeah, thanks, we already knew that.
>
>
>>
>> Here you take the _current_ limited role of RNA as God-given.
>> There is nothing intrinsic in the RNA that says it needs DNA,
>> it's just the way we happen to run things today.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>
>
>who is the "we" that are running things today? And don't scientists
>determine the past by the way things are today?
a not-too-clever creationist ploy of linguistic manipulation.
we determine laws. we, unlike creationists, are not interested in
laundry lists of OBSERVATIONS, we are interested in the operations of
natural laws.
but, to a creationist, science is not meant to explain. it is meant to
validate god, period.
>
>
>> There's a lot of research being done on the origin
>> of the genetic code. Here's a list of some references:
>> http://www.hj.se/~josv/artsubj.htm#bioabiogen
>>
>
>it's clear there is a LOT of study going on. Have they yet discovered
>a differently functioning genetic code in the past than today?
god of the gaps. and they have identified different genetic
codes..some organisms function with RNA rather than DNA.
Have
>they observed evidence of a genetic system where DNA and RNA do not
>need each other, and that protein building and specialized growth can
>occur in a different setting? No. There IS some imaginative
>speculation as to how it could possibly have been in the beginning, but
>speculation is just that, speculation, not science.
and on the absence of answers, creationists state that god did it is
an answer. on the absence of answers creationists say that this is
good enough to avoid answering any questions at all.
>
>> But if it's just a
>> matter of us not being able to figure out how it's done,
>> then it proves more about our limited minds than about
>> any creation.
>>
>
>and until it can be figured out, it is premature to rule out an
>intelligent Creator.
and how does an intelligent creator operate?
zoe doesnt say.
what does the idea of an intelligent creator explain? zoe doesnt say.
but she knows its science!!
To do so is to reveal a highly unscientific
>prejudice that says, "I have already made up my mind that there can be
>no God, regardless of what is figured out in the future."
its not closed minded to say that an idea void of content is void of
content.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>In article <3A140B60...@bellsouth.net>,
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> zoe_althrop wrote:
>>
>> You again assume that the DNA, and "first life"
>> was as "complex" as modern DNA and modern life, in
>> general.
>>
>
>
>isn't it a principle of science that conclusions are drawn about the
>past due to what we observe today?
creationists remind me of alcoholics. alcoholics manipulate to hide
their dependence on alcohol. creationists, being god junkies,
manipulate to hide their dependence on the absence of coherence of
their arguments about science
we draw conclusions about the past based on LAWS that are not time
dependent. those laws cause the unfolding of events in time. in fact,
the calculus was invented to quantify change.
but zoe refuses to recognize this...another indication of the moral
bankruptcy of creationism
.. This has been explained to you before by
>> several people, and yet you make the same *basic*
>> mistake, over, and over, and over again.
>>
>
>
>and as I've said before, when we do not have all the answers, then a
>move to prematurely exclude intelligence as one of the answers reveals
>an unacceptable prejudice that bespeaks an agenda that does not include
>scientific honesty.
>
except your idea of intelligence, by your own admission, explains
nothing. it tells us nothing about what intelligence IS, or HOW it
operates. so there is no justification for accepting it as an
explanation of anything.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>In article <8v61vt$ho8$1...@gnamma.connect.com.au>,
> GenNem <REMOVEsa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> z On what authority other than an
>> over-active imagination, do we decide that the genetic code was
>created?
>
>you're jumping the gun here. I am simply asking the question: can the
>genetic code be simpler and still function?
yeah, it can. flatworms have very simple genetic codes and it still
functions.
>
>
>
>
>> and try to make up other ways in which magical creation took
>> place is pure speculation and should be recognized as such.
>>
>
>please list these other ways in which I have said some magical creation
>took place?
you insist that intelligence...which you refuse to define, created the
world...by a process you refuse to define.
magic works EXACTLY the same way.
>
>>
>> No one is excluding anything other than those things for which there
>is no
>> evidence. God in the Gaps is not science and is shallow theology.
>>
>
>Except I am not talking about a God in the Gaps. And since you have
>introduced the topic of God here, I will respond in kind and say that
>there IS evidence of God in the non-gaps. And as each gap gets filled
>in, it will produce further evidence of an intelligent Creator.
>
except the biggest gap you refuse to fill in:
tell us HOW this god works. until then its not science.
Andy Groves
zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8v15k8$lh3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8v0v5s$fgg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > Hello, fellow posters,
> > >
> > > I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and
> began
> > > to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to
> rescue
> > > the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
> > >
> > > (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please
> be so
> > > kind as to repeat them here.)
> > >
> > > Original issue:
> > >
> > > The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
> All
> > > aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order
> for
> > > life forms to grow and take shape.
> >
> >
>
> why unwarranted? I am basing the above, not on assumption, but on
> reality and fact. This is what we see today. What would be a truly
> unwarranted assumption would be to say that what we see today was not
> so yesterday.
All extant evidence suggests that life arose from simpler organisms.
That in itself is enough to contradict your last assertion. Your
assumption is that because all 20 amino acids are required for
multicellular life today, they were also required for the very first
forms of life.
> > > So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
> > > idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
> > >
> > > There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell, and
> > > different cell types have different enzyme sets. The self-
> catalyzing
> > > ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of
> other
> > > enzymes needed for growth and development. And these other enzymes
> are
> > > dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on
> these
> > > enzymes in order to effect growth.
> >
> > Again, you are assuming that all enzymes were originally required for
> > life.
> >
>
> not assuming. This is the way life successfully operates today. It is
> an unwarranted assumption to say that life could successfully operate
> on less than today's requirements. We see today that whenever there is
> a disruption (mutation) in the genetic code's activities, that life is
> not enhanced, but decreased. Far worse for removing any of the parts
> of the whole.
I think you'll find that there are many more genes in humans than there
are in yeast, and more genes in yeast than there are in some bacteria.
And those bacteria are the product of a few billion years of evolution.
To say that the earliest forms of replicating life on earth had to
resemble the simplest bacteria alive today lies in the face of
everything we know about evolution.
> > > Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
> > > since RNAs owe their existence to DNA.
> >
> > Not necessarily. You are being confused by the sitauation today. RNAs
> do
> > not require DNA for their synthesis.
> >
>
> authority for saying this?
There are a whole bunch of papers that show that RNA can direct its own
synthesis.
> > > DNA serves as a template for
> > > all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
> > > cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
> > > ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
> >
> > Incorrect, as stated above.
> >
>
> basis?
RNAs do not necessarily require DNA for their synthesis or function.
> > > The discovery of the Tetrahymena thermophila group I intron, which
> > > indicates a self-catalyzing RNA, starts the study of RNAs at a
> higher
> > > level of the interdependent genetic code, so to say that this
> suggests
> > > that RNAs first existed in the primordial soup is to change the laws
> > > that say that RNAs derive from DNA.
> >
> > Which laws. You are once again confused.
> >
>
> I am referring to the laws that are in place today in a genetic code
> that operates consistently, repetitively, reliably, the way systems do
> when operating under a law or laws.
The gentic code says nothing about whether RNA has to be derived from
DNA or not.
> > > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
> been
> > > simpler?
> >
> > Yes it is. Current theories of the genetic code's origins suggest that
> > different components of the code were added gradually, and at some
> point
> > the code became fixed.
> >
>
> these theories are unproven and thus remain in the category of rank
> speculation.
First off, scientific theories are never proved. They simply acquire
evidene to suport or refute them. Currently, the evidence suggests that
the genetic code was originally simpler than it is today. There is very
little evidence to suggest the opposite. I suggest you find a university
library and read this short review and the papers referenced therein:
Knight RD, Landweber LF. (2000)
The early evolution of the genetic code.
Cell. volume 101:569-72
> And are you, too, saying that evolution has ceased? A
> fixed code would prevent any further evolution, I would think.
>
Just because the genetic code is invariant, does not mean the genotype
makeup of an organism is also invariant. We observe changes in genotype
all the time, distinct from changes in the genetic code.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>In article <slrn91845c...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>,
> ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) wrote:
>> On 16 Nov 2000 10:40:51 -0500, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@my-deja.com>
>w
>>
>> Don't be vague, define your terms. What are "aspects" of the
>> genetic code?
>>
>
>those aspects that contribute to growth and development -- DNA, RNAs,
>enzymes, specialized functions of proteins that derive their behaviors
>from instructions from the DNA, the need for exact copying of the
>original instructions in order for heredity to be perpetuated
>successfully.
and many of these change from organism to organism. different enzymes,
different proteins, different structures of DNA...so you have no basis
on which to conclude the code is irreducibly complex.
>
>> >So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
>> >idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
>>
>> Which problem?
>>
>
>the problem of harmonizing the complex and irreducible structure of the
>genetic code
prove its irreducibly complex
And these other enzymes
>are
>> >dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on
>these
>> >enzymes in order to effect growth.
>>
>> Once you are at the level of cells, that might be true. That is
>> not necessarily true for pre-biotic and biotic precursors. There
>> is nothing to indicate that these precursors needed thousands of
>> enzymes to reproduce.
>>
>
>and there also is NOTHING to indicate that these precursors did not
>need thousands of enzymes to reproduce. This is pure speculation and
>should be recognized as such, shouldn't it?
and there is nothing to prove they DID. you cant prove a negative. can
you prove you're NOT a child molestor? does that make you one until
proven innocent?
>>
>> Remind me again, in the context of irreducible complexity, what are
>> your "components", what is your "system", and what is its "function"?
>> Once you have those terms defined, then we have something to argue
>about.
>>
>
>components: DNA, RNA, amino acids, enzymes, proteins, start-and-stop
>codons, exons, introns, for starters.
which differ from organism to organism. in some organisms DNA is
absent completely. so the code is not irreducibly complex.
>
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>In article <8v15k8$lh3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Andy Groves <gro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Again, you are assuming that all enzymes were originally required for
>> life.
>>
>
>not assuming. This is the way life successfully operates today. It is
>an unwarranted assumption to say that life could successfully operate
>on less than today's requirements.
so absence of evidence is evidence of absence??
on this basis zoe builds her scientific theories. there's no PROOF her
neighbor's not a child molestor, so she shoots him because of that...
yeah, thats creationist logic.
We see today that whenever there is
>a disruption (mutation) in the genetic code's activities, that life is
>not enhanced, but decreased
really? since thats wrong, again, zoe is lying. she is a typical
creationist. lies and lies, just to prove she's telling the truth.
>>
>> Which laws. You are once again confused.
>>
>
>I am referring to the laws that are in place today in a genetic code
>that operates consistently, repetitively, reliably, the way systems do
>when operating under a law or laws.
except the genetic code does NOT operate reliably. if it did we
wouldnt have mutations, and we wouldnt have cancer.
>
>> > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
>been
>> > simpler?
>>
>> Yes it is. Current theories of the genetic code's origins suggest that
>> different components of the code were added gradually, and at some
>point
>> the code became fixed.
>>
>
>these theories are unproven and thus remain in the category of rank
>speculation.
ah...so science should quit trying to explain things??
yeah, to a creationist, science is nothing more than a laundry list of
disconnected observations to prove god exists by proving the universe
is based on random chance...
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>In article <3A140EC3...@indiana.edu>,
> hers...@indiana.edu wrote:
>>
>>
>> zoe_althrop wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello, fellow posters,
>> >
>> [snip]
>> >
>> > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
>been
>> > simpler?
>>
>> Short answer is yes. There are a significant number of research
>> articles and theoretical articles that discuss the origin of the
>> present 'universal' genetic code.
>
>all speculation so far, I hope you will acknowledge.
this actually makes sense to zoe. creationists believe that science
should accept god, and to hell with explanation. just say 'god did
it', or 'intelligent design did it', and be done with it. that
eliminates the need for theory.
>
>
>> They all start with simpler
>> systems, often with an initial highly degenerate code that
>> distinguishes only between hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids.
>> Subsequent events lead to further differentiation of this initial
>> crude code and greater distinction between different amino acids.
>
>all necessary speculation in order to make abiogenesis continue to fly.
gee..imagine...science trying to make sense of the world...trying to
explain something...
and zoe is offended.
>
>
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>In article <8v65nr$itn$1...@gnamma.connect.com.au>,
> GenNem <REMOVEsa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> zoe_althrop wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <3A140EC3...@indiana.edu>,
>> > hers...@indiana.edu wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > zoe_althrop wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Hello, fellow posters,
>> > > >
>> > > [snip]
>> > > >
>> > > > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
>> > been
>> > > > simpler?
>> > >
>> > > Short answer is yes. There are a significant number of research
>> > > articles and theoretical articles that discuss the origin of the
>> > > present 'universal' genetic code.
>> >
>> > all speculation so far, I hope you will acknowledge.
>> >
>> > > They all start with simpler
>> > > systems, often with an initial highly degenerate code that
>> > > distinguishes only between hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino
>acids.
>> > > Subsequent events lead to further differentiation of this initial
>> > > crude code and greater distinction between different amino acids.
>> >
>> > all necessary speculation in order to make abiogenesis continue to
>fly.
>>
>> There is speculation then there is speculation.
>>
>> http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/pages/science/RNA.html
>
>
>and halfway through this article, we find this partial summation:
>
>"So far, we have constructed an unsatisfying picture of the earliest
>days of an RNA world: although some prebiotic mechanisms may exist for
>the untemplated formation of oligonucleotides, these molecules would
>have been short, would have contained a variety of monomers besides
>ribotides and could not have been faithfully copied by the template-
>directed polymenzation of monomers. Given this model, it is difficult
>to imagine the accumulation of RNA sequences necessary for the
>Darwinian selection of a multitude of active ribozymes."
>
>but continues on, undaunted:
>
>"Nevertheless, these precursors may have been adequate for the first
>critical step in the formation of life: the formation of an RNA
>replicase."
>
>
>I don't particularly care to build my worldview on this type
>of "nevertheless" reasoning.
>
nevertheless, thats the way science operates
thats why you're so confused. you're too lazy to think, so 'god did
it' is an answer for you.
>
>
>> http://web.wi.mit.edu/bartel/pub/
>
>
>this does not answer the question of how RNA takes on the functions of
>DNA, other than to speculate.
all science begins with speculation.
>
>
>I suppose, GenNem, you would like me to build my worldview on this
>particular assumption?
>
you seem to have built your worldview on the following
1. absence of evidence is evidence of absence
2. science should accept god with no explanation
3. god did it explains all
4. all science is good, except that part you alone say isnt.
some worldview.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>In article <8v18cv$3247h$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Oh zoe, didn't anyone tell you it's bad form to start with a false
>premise?
>
>exactly my point I've been making all along. I think the theory of
>macroevolution and the theory of cosmology and abiogenesis are theories
>based on a false premise.
yeah...you think its wrong for science to try to explain anything. you
think the job of science is to accept 'god did it' as science.
>
>>
>> Nope, How the first life form began has nothing to do with later
>evolution
>> of it's descendants.
>
>
>it has everything to do with later evolution. If the code was in place
>in its full complex form in the beginning, there would be nothing to
>evolve, except for the type of adaptations that cause speciation.
since the code TODAY doesnt exist in this form, its hard to see how
zoe could conclude it was ALWAYS in this form.
>
>
>
>>Goddidit is never a scientific conclusion.
>
>
>
>
>neither is "Goddidn'tdoit" a scientific conclusion. So maybe we can
>discuss the philosophy and rationale for the two on another thread?
zoe, being a creationist, ignores basic logic
zoe is a child molestor. is it up to me to prove that, or up to her to
disprove it? the rules of logic say the former. otherwise anybody
could say anything.
but thats zoe's logic: anything should be acceptable in science,
including statements that have NO content like 'god did it'...is there
anything this doesnt explain?
>
>
>> BTW, yes,
>> the genetic code could have been simpler.
>>
>
>that is an unsupported assertion.
>
its seen today.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>In article <20001116134025...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
> gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
>> From Zoe Althrop:
>>
>> >The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
>All
>> >aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order for
>> >life forms to grow and take shape.
>>
>> For modern lifeforms perhaps, but there is no reason why irreducibly
>complex
>> systems could not have evolved from reducibly complex ones.
>>
>
>the term "irreducibly complex" implies that there can be no functioning
>reducibly complex version of the system preceding it.
>
>> >So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
>> >idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
>>
>> >There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell, and
>> >different cell types have different enzyme sets.
>>
>> Are you so sure that a protobiont would require all two thousand of
>them?
>>
>
>here's a revealing statement on speculative theory re protobionts, as
>found in a class lecture.
>
>http://eee.uci.edu/00w/07125/lecture10.html
>
>
>"The Origin of Life
>
>Before we SPECULATE (caps mine) on how life began, we need to know a
>little something about the conditions on earth during and after its
>formation."
>
>
>and then the lesson proceeds to speculate on what it supposedly KNOWS
>about the conditions on earth. And there is no evidence proffered for
>it being the way it is described, either. Continuing quote --
>
>"The earth was originally molten rock, with hot hydrogen gases,
>volcanoes and lightening (sic). It is thought that it took 600 million
>years for the earth to cool; all in all, the earth was a pretty
>inhospitable place. Geologists call this period the Hadean."
>
>note the words, "it is thought that." Continuing...
and this is why zoe is confused
science begins on speculation. max planck SPECULATED that quantum
oscillators could explain blackbody radiation. proof? none. none at
all. it merely explained the data. thats how quantum mechanics began
but to zoe, science should abdicate the idea of explanation, and
replace it with the idea of authority: 'god did it'.
>
>
>"When the earth finally cooled, the first atmosphere consisted of water
>vapor, carbon-dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen (N2),
>methane CH3 and ammonia (NH3)."
>
>I wonder who was there to measure these elements and quantities?
we can measure it in old rocks and ice.
thats why you're confused. scientists measure things. creationists are
too lazy.
>
>At this point, I've had enough. Why read further to see what other
>speculations there are for the protobiont?
yeah, you've had enough. thats real work...real science
you prefer to be lazy...make up an answer, then go eat popcorn.
>
>
>> >The self-catalyzing
>> >ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of
>other
>
>> A protobiont probably did not have had a metabolism in the modern
>sense of the
>> word, allowing it to add enzymatic functions a few at a time.
>>
>
>that word "probably" bothers me. Must I change my whole worldview on
>the turn of a "probably" or "nevertheless"? These are mere human minds
>offering mere human opinions, and somehow, these opinions have become
>established as scientific fact and are taught in the classrooms of the
>world.
ah...the creationist contradiction
even she admits the use of the word PROBABLY...then says this is
taught AS FACT
its pretty hard to teach a 'probably' as fact.
as to your worldview, science isnt responsible for the fact you have a
cult belief.
>
>> >DNA serves as a template for
>> >all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
>> >cannot function without DNA's instructions.
>>
>> RNA certainly can function without instructions from DNA. How else
>could we
>> inject insulin genes into bacteria to grow insulin?
>>
>
>the gene owes its existence to DNA, and it is manipulated by
>intelligence in the injection process.
HOW??
oh...sorry...you're a creationist and you dont have to answer ANY
questions at all.
WickedDyno
<zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <3A140B60...@bellsouth.net>,
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > zoe_althrop wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, fellow posters,
> > >
> > > I started reading through the irreducible complexity thread and
> began
> > > to get bogged down in the side issues. So here's an attempt to
> rescue
> > > the thread and bring it back to the original issue.
> > >
> > > (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please
> be so
> > > kind as to repeat them here.)
> > >
> > > Original issue:
> > >
> > > The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
> All
> > > aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order
> for
> > > life forms to grow and take shape.
> >
> > You again assume that the DNA, and "first life"
> > was as "complex" as modern DNA and modern life, in
> > general.
> >
>
>
> isn't it a principle of science that conclusions are drawn about the
> past due to what we observe today? On what authority, other than an
> over-active imagination, do we decide that the genetic code was
> different? To dismantle it and try to make up other ways in which
> growth and development took place is pure speculation and should be
> recognized as such.
>
>
> > >
> > > So far, on the ICofGC thread, there was only one objection to this
> > > idea: Ribozymes. This is a poor solution to the problem.
> > >
> > > There are over 2,000 to 3,000 different enzymes in each cell, and
> > > different cell types have different enzyme sets. The self-
> catalyzing
> > > ability of RNA is insufficient to do the work of the thousands of
> other
> > > enzymes needed for growth and development. And these other enzymes
> are
> > > dependent on DNA for their existence, as, in turn, DNA depends on
> these
> > > enzymes in order to effect growth.
> > >
> > > Further, the RNA world concept does not qualify as a viable theory
> > > since RNAs owe their existence to DNA. DNA serves as a template for
> > > all growth, but DNA cannot function without the RNAs and the RNAs
> > > cannot function without DNA's instructions. At this basic level,
> > > ribozymes are not even yet an issue.
> > >
> > > The discovery of the Tetrahymena thermophila group I intron, which
> > > indicates a self-catalyzing RNA, starts the study of RNAs at a
> higher
> > > level of the interdependent genetic code, so to say that this
> suggests
> > > that RNAs first existed in the primordial soup is to change the laws
> > > that say that RNAs derive from DNA.
> > >
> > > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
> been
> > > simpler? If not, it means that present life forms did not slowly
> > > evolve from an ancestor to the bacterium, but appeared fully formed
> in
> > > a single moment of time.
> >
> > No. If anything, it means we do no have all the
> > answers and defaulting to "Goddidit!", under any
> > disguise you want to hang on it (ID, Directed
> > Panspermia, or Trans Dimensional Life Bringers),
> > is not a legitimate scientific position, no matter
> > how much you want to think it is, since "We do not
> > have all the answers" does not mean "GODDIDIT!" by
> > default. This has been explained to you before by
> > several people, and yet you make the same *basic*
> > mistake, over, and over, and over again.
> >
>
>
> and as I've said before, when we do not have all the answers, then a
> move to prematurely exclude intelligence as one of the answers reveals
> an unacceptable prejudice that bespeaks an agenda that does not include
> scientific honesty.
Intelligence as an answer must make definite predictions. Your
half-baked WAGs about intelligent creation make no predictions
whatsoever.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
WickedDyno
<zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <3A140EC3...@indiana.edu>,
> hers...@indiana.edu wrote:
> >
> >
> > zoe_althrop wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, fellow posters,
> > >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > So the question is: Is it possible for the genetic code to have
> been
> > > simpler?
> >
> > Short answer is yes. There are a significant number of research
> > articles and theoretical articles that discuss the origin of the
> > present 'universal' genetic code.
>
> all speculation so far, I hope you will acknowledge.
Speculation based on evidence. Also known as "hypothesizing".
> > They all start with simpler
> > systems, often with an initial highly degenerate code that
> > distinguishes only between hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids.
> > Subsequent events lead to further differentiation of this initial
> > crude code and greater distinction between different amino acids.
>
> all necessary speculation in order to make abiogenesis continue to fly.
And all of your nonsense is speculation necessary to make God fly. The
question is which speculation is less speculative, and more based on
evidence.
> > There are clear selective reasons for evolving a more highly
> > differentiated code capable of greater distinction between amino acids
> > -- up to a point. After that point (which depends upon how many
> > proteins are important and what amino acids they contain) change gets
> > more difficult and the code gets frozen.
> >
>
> are you saying that evolution has ceased, now that the code is frozen?
It has certainly been slowed greatly.
WickedDyno
<ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8v6ca6$oho$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <20001116134025...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
> > gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
> > > From Zoe Althrop:
> > >
> > > >The genetic code and abiogenesis appear to be incompatible. Why?
> > All
> > > >aspects of the genetic code have to exist simultaneously in order
> > > >for
> > > >life forms to grow and take shape.
> > >
> > > For modern lifeforms perhaps, but there is no reason why irreducibly
> > complex
> > > systems could not have evolved from reducibly complex ones.
> > >
> >
> > the term "irreducibly complex" implies that there can be no functioning
> > reducibly complex version of the system preceding it.
>
It's simple arguments like this that makes me think I've either missed
something crucial in the conception of "irreducibly complex" systems
that makes them more problematical than is apparent to me, or that the
IC proponets are completely ignorant of basic evolutionary reasoning.
wf...@ptd.net
Basically, your criteria are so
>stringent that only a trip through time to Earth's remote past could
>convince you (and even then, I have my doubts).
excellent summary. and it shows what happens when creationist logic is
taken to its conclusion. they end up destroying god in order to save
him.
>
>Anyway, I'm done with you, Zoe. Your views were originally interesting,
>and, for a while, you seemed interested in honest discussion. But, after
>two lengthy threads, I'm convinced that you've already made up your mind,
>and that you're not open to other possibilities. Have fun.
>
another view is that she's ONLY open to non-scientific possibilites
which support her religious beliefs.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>In article <3a142fbd$0$63615$45be...@newscene.com>,
> "Vincent Maycock" <maycock...@andrews.edu> wrote:
>snip>
>
>> Fossil evolutionary sequences and nested hierarchies in the genome
>show that
>> evolution has occurred.
>>
>
>I'm awaiting your e-mail that will lay out the language I should use in
>discussing this with you.
>
>> > (If I have missed on-topic responses on the ICofGC thread, please
>be so
>> > kind as to repeat them here.)
>>
>> Your YEC beliefs are refuted by the evidence.
>>
>
>what does young earth creationism have to do with this thread? I am
>not here discussing the God of the Bible. But, evidently, you are.
stealth creationism. creationism is, in many ways, a lie. and
creationists generally lie in pretending they're not pushing
creationism when intelligent design itself would not exist if the
supreme court hadnt outlawed the teaching of creationism in public
schools. design is just another lie that's attempting to get around
the law.
And it's far more
>plausible that
>> such precursor systems existed at one time, than it is that God
>magically
>> caused things to appear out of nowhere.
>
>A God making things magically appear ("magical" because we don't
>understand the science of it)
but if we dont UNDERSTAND it, how can you say its science? you havent
put forth a single solitary scientific idea about HOW creationism
works.
is more reasonable and parsimonious a
>solution than precursor systems magically appearing and beginning to
>self-organize through a long and twisted history of trial and error.
we have seen precursors in evolution
we've NEVER seen god operate ANYWHERE. not once. ever.
>
>
>> There is no evidence for God, however, so
>> the former is the better hypothesis. There is some empirical support
>for the
>> idea that the genetic code was at one time far simpler than it is now;
>
>what is this empirical support? Source?
old bacterial species.
old plant species
old vertebrate species
and notice zoe's double standard. she requires that science answer ALL
questions but that she answer NONE. none at all.
>
>> So it appears that the earliest RNA sequences retained traces of a
>time
>> before life began, when resistance to being knocked apart by the harsh
>> environment in which the genetic code was presumably forming.
>>
>
>nice theory, but pure speculation.
to a creationist anything that doesnt agree with them is 'speculation'
, e.g., the
>blood
>> clotting system, where we have molecular evidence that an essentially
>IC
>> system developed gradually.
>>
>
>you are trying to explain this amazing sophistication that we are now
>uncovering by a worldview that is archaic and, frankly, quite rickety
>and worn out.
in your opinion.
and you would replace it with magic. and claim its science.
>>
>> That is not a law; it's just the way living things happen to be set
>up right
>> now.
>>
>
>we learn about the past from the way things are in the present, don't
>we? Or do we just look at the way things are presently and turn our
>backs and launch into a speculative litany that has a godless universe
>as its agenda?
a godless universe IN YOUR OPINION
god is NEVER used in science but your cult beliefs require him to be
involved in biology. that alone is enough to rule it out.
>
>>
>
>which is more parsimonious, a single entity who sets things in motion,
>or billions of random, chance, trial-and-error twists and turns that
>require many tomes of speculative explanations of how these twists and
>turns could possible end up producing our present complex world?
>
random chance, actually. because we can observe it
where's your meter to measure god?
WickedDyno
Du-u-u-u-ude!