Origin of Life: Another Great Challenge to Darwinism

[SandChigger]

If you are asking about the identity of the designer or what method the designer utilized to create the cosmos and all biological life, ID does not address those questions, it simply argues that the scientific data strongly indicates that purposeful and intelligent design was involved in the process.

<img src="http://www.hairyticksofdune.net/extimgs/rolling.gif" />

Oh GOD, stop already! :D

[athanasios]

If you are asking about... what method the designer utilized to create the cosmos and all biological life, ID does not address those questions

? ::)

[SandChigger]

Wolf! I just saw this in an Amazon Science discussion thread; wasn't sure from the fanfic post whether you were aware of this distinction they make; I wasn't.

['Operational science' i]s a term adopted up by creationists in a self-serving ploy to divide science into two categories. The other category is 'historical science', which, no surprise, includes evolutionary theory and abiogenesis theory.

Operational science is REAL science and merits esteem.

Historical science is just a bunch of atheist 'theories', and merits no esteem whatsoever.

At least according to the Creationist/ID types...

[chatfsh]

? ::)

Athanasios, taken out of context, the statement that you quoted could be easily misunderstood. Read the entire post to gain a clearer understanding of the statement in question.

[Wolf]

Chig: No, I actually had absolutely no idea, whatsoever. I pretty much just guessed that it was b.s. based on its vagueness/similarity to things that are legitimate. I grokked wrongness, if you will.

EDIT: But, upon further reflection, I think that's indicative of how far down the rabbit hole goes in this case.

[SandChigger]

Yeah, it's pretty deep, alright, but by no means profound.

Athanasios, taken out of context, the statement that you quoted could be easily misunderstood. Read the entire post to gain a clearer understanding of the statement in question.

What the hell makes you think he DIDN'T read the whole post or read the statement he quoted IN CONTEXT?

[athanasios]

Please, no more lengthy posts! Regardless of the position expressed in them, they only make the entire discussion difficult to follow.

I suspect she is worried, that due to their length, we don't read them all. LOL!

[SandChigger]

What in the world would make her think that?

:P

[SandChigger]

(sniff, sniff)

Yeah, it sure does smell like triumph in here, Hwi. :)

[Wolf]

And I sure love the smell of triumph in the morning.

(And we totally won that war, too... at least, we were winning when I left.)

[SandChigger]

(Could she have possibly meant Triumph the Insult Dog?  :- )

[arnoldo]

As is often the case, the best place to start is at the beginning.  So let’s open this topic with a discussion on the origin of biological life and the source of the rich digital information (machine-like code) stored in the double helix structure of the DNA molecule.

The intractable paradox that has plagued evolutionary biologists, since Crick and Watson’s discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953, is the DNA enigma  – namely how did the highly specified digital information encoded in DNA, and the complex transcription and translation process involved in protein synthesis evolve by means of a naturalistic mechanism?

One must understand that prior to 1953, it was easy to believe that cells evolved from some primordial ooze because at that time the common belief concerning cells was that they were essentially nothing more than ‘homogenous and structureless globules of protoplasm’ (gelatinous blobs, if you will) instead of highly automated cities full of specialized molecular machines, compact digital data storage, sophisticated transport systems, and information processing systems well beyond anything that the human mind could approximate.

Volumes have been written on the sophisticated information processing system contained within the cell, but I will quickly summarize exactly what it is that has consistently perplexed and stumped the best of molecular biologists in their effort to explain by naturalistic mechanisms (i.e. natural selection) the origin of the specified complexity in the cell.

For those of you who are more visually inclined, see the short three minute video clip linked here.

First evolutionary biologists must explain the origin of digital information (the instructions for building thousands of proteins required by all biological life) embedded in the DNA code.  The whole protein synthesis process is both marvelous and strangely intuitive.  We start with the DNA located within the cell nucleus.  First a large protein complex comes along to unzip the double helix structure of the DNA molecule allowing another protein complex called a polymerase to begin constructing a single strand copy of the original section of code.  The resulting single strand of transcript code is called messenger RNA (mRNA).   The mRNA carrying the protein assembly instructions approaches the nuclear pore complex which controls the information going in and out of the cell nucleus.   Once the nuclear pore complex allows the mRNA to exit the nucleus, the mRNA proceeds toward the ribosome where protein synthesis can take place.  (Think of the ribosome as a protein factory – mRNA goes in and proteins come out.)

The two halves of the ribosome enclose around the mRNA at which time it begins reading and translating the mRNA codons (triplicate base of nucleotides copied from the DNA code).  The information is translated so that the tRNA molecules retrieve the corresponding amino acids and deliver them to the ribosome for protein synthesis.  The tRNA attaches the proper amino acid at one end and matches up its other end (anti-codon) to the mRNA codon base.  

We have a match – tRNA anti-codon with amino acid to the corresponding mRNA codon (triplicate nucleotide base).  

Having dropped off its amino acid package, the tRNA departs and another tRNA comes along to deliver its amino acid ‘package’.  Once it deposits the package, it too departs.  A peptide bond forms between the monomers linking the amino acids together to form a polypeptide chain.  As the polypeptide chain emerges from the ribosome, it begins to fold into a three dimensional structure, thus transforming itself into a functional protein.  From there it is either sent out into the cell cytoplasm to perform its assigned task in the organism or it joins other proteins to perform a more highly specialized task.  [the linked video demonstrates the whole protein synthesis process rather nicely.]

Please note here that the biochemical language encoded in DNA, consisting of four nucleotide bases (A, C, G, T), is quite different from that of the twenty amino acids required to build proteins.  This is why the ribosome must translate the DNA code from the mRNA template in order for the tRNA molecule to retrieve the proper amino acid as prescribed by the DNA code.  Think of it as having design/fabrication instructions in German that must be translated into English before the American factory can begin assembling the product.

Please note that I have drastically oversimplified the whole process.  The intricate inner workings of the complex system could hardly be contained in one post.  But I will highlight the fact that the DNA code is not solely responsible for the final output product.  For instance, there are two large ribonucleoprotein complexes called spliceosomes and editosomes that, oddly enough, splice and edit the mRNA transcript before it even reaches the ribosome for translation.  According to the latest research, the translation machinery within the ribosome, in connection with various other proteins and RNA factors, determines precisely how the particular gene will be translated.  In other words, one gene can be translated in a multitude of ways.  This is a strong indication that the information in the gene is densely compacted and stored in the DNA code making the system far more specified and complex than any molecular biologists had previously imagined.

I will also point out that some scientists have attempted to claim that the DNA code is full of junk (containing large portions of useless non-coding DNA).  To refer to it as junk is absolutely absurd for a couple of good reasons.  The first being that originally 95% of the human genome was once designated as ‘junk’ until molecular biologists slowly began to unravel its mysteries and  discovered that the various sections of non-coding DNA actually served essential functions other than coding proteins.  Even in the case where the function has yet to be determined, logic dictates that this condition is more indicative of the scientists’ lack of understanding as opposed to the lack of function on the part of the section of code in question.  

The bottom line is this – if evolutionary biologists are unable to explain, by some naturalistic mechanism, how this elegant and marvelously complex system arose through blind, undirected, unguided, purposeless luck [as the system is no minor anomaly or insignificant matter], then it quickly calls into question the validity of the argument that life originated by naturalistic means.  To date, scientists have failed utterly and miserably to explain what clearly appears to be, at least to all rational beings, the product of purposeful design.

Ahem…does anyone disagree with this assessment?

Darwinism has nothing to do with the origin of life. 

[SandChigger]

::)

Oh, braVO, arnoldo. I suppose you missed where that was pointed out to her already?

Along with the memo informing everyone that the modern theory is not called "Darwinism" anymore. Except by the <b>Christian heretics</b> who support Intelligent Design.

(Sure you're on the right side of this argument, mi peque

[arnoldo]

Unless you're a dogmatic materialist, ID is just as plausible a theory for the origin of life on earth as RNA world theory, Clay Theory, Iron Sulfur world theory, or panspermia/exogenesis. 

[SandChigger]

Unless you're a dogmatic materialist, ID is just as plausible a theory for the origin of life on earth as RNA world theory, Clay Theory, Iron Sulfur world theory, or panspermia/exogenesis.

Um ... no. But, hey, thanks for playing anyway! ;D

(And for confirming hereby that you haven't any more of the slightest idea what a "plausible theory" is than the Hausfrau that started this nonsense. ALWAYS a pleasure to run over you, arnoldo. :) )

[chatfsh]

Yeah, that's right. Keep dancing around evading the key issue.  You can call it by whatever name that suits you (Darwinism, Evolution, Macroevolution), but it won't change the fact that a purely naturalistic mechanism is entirely inadequate in accounting for the emergence of biological life on this planet or for the marvelous complexity that we find therein.

Christian heretics??  Pfft, whatever man.

[MrFlibble]

it won't change the fact that a purely naturalistic mechanism is entirely inadequate in accounting for the emergence of biological life on this planet or for the marvelous complexity that we find therein.

I think the real problem here is that a "purely naturalistic mechanism" is as much a theoretical construct secondary to reality as anything else. Other than that, I really fail to understand why it is so important for the ID proponents to prove that at some point, acts of divine intervention took place in order to alter the course of "natural" development. From my philosophy classes, I remember that there were two points of view on Creation in European tradition of the modern era, one stating that no acts of divine intervention take place after God created the universe (deism), and the other arguing exactly the opposite. The current argument seems to be rooted to a great extent in this opposition of the two philosophical ideas dating back to the seventeenth century.

[SandChigger]

Christian heretics??  Pfft, whatever man.

Whatever indeed, <b>woman</b>.

I actually brought this up in the other lovely nonsense thread a while back, but received no answer. Do you not accept the Bible as the literal word of God, inspired and inerrant, and believe everything within it? If you answer no, or qualify, you are, quite simply, a <b>heretic</b>. If you pick and choose what you believe and what you don't, you are taking from The Word, which the Bible itself explicitly condemns. You set yourself above the Word of God by daring to judge it. You set yourself above God, who will judge and condemn you.

Sorry, sister, but that's the way it works. Hard to hear, hard to take, hard to accept, but them's the breaks. Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to Life!

[chatfsh]

On what basis are you assuming that the Christans who support  ID are heretics, picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to believe?

Based upon your own definition, I am by no means a Christian heretic.

[SandChigger]

How old is the Earth, Hwi?

[chatfsh]

Neither the question that you have posed, nor the accusation of heresy that you have made has any bearing whatsoever on the topic under discussion. So I'll remind you, yet  again, to limit your questions to those that are actually relevant to the topic.

[Wolf]

But it's totally cool of you to ignore the absolutely relevant points that gut ID and that you have no answer for, right? We might as well just go all the way and talk about bears in clownsuits riding unicycles while shooting carbines. That'd make more sense than what you seem to think this thread is about. Frankly, Chigger's too on target with that question.

[SandChigger]

Neither the question that you have posed, nor the accusation of heresy that you have made has any bearing whatsoever on the topic under discussion. So I'll remind you, yet  again, to limit your questions to those that are actually relevant to the topic.

Ah, but of course. Very well.

Come then, if you're not a coward as well as a heretic, and address the question in a thread where your heresy <b>is</b> the topic and the question directly relevant: http://forum.dune2k.com/index.php?topic=22408.0

I'll be waiting. ;D

[chatfsh]

But it's totally cool of you to ignore the absolutely relevant points that gut ID and that you have no answer for, right?

The only worthwhile point to which I have yet to respond is the one recently posted by MrFlibble.  And indeed, I intend to respond to it.

Come then, if you're not a coward as well as a heretic, and address the question in a thread where your heresy <b>is</b> the topic and the question directly relevant:

I'll be waiting. ;D

Sorry, but I

[SandChigger]

Ah, so it's coward <b>and</b> heretic then. Much as I expected, you pick and choose your battles as you no doubt pick and choose your scriptures. Bravo, <b>brave</b> Hwi! The Designer must be very proud.