About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10Page 0


Post 200

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 3:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Can we detect marks of design in element A? Where in the overal system, can we reliably claim that one element shows design, another element shows contingency?

What makes you look for intelligent design in the first place?

You would realise that religious belief does - if you were being honest with yourself.

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 8/23, 3:55am)


Post 201

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 8:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Grammarian, before I correct your appalling grasp of molecular biology let me ask you this question:

If there was an intelligent designer - where the F*** did he come from? Was *he/she/it* intelligently designed (and if so by who and how did they get here) or did they arise by randomly by chance?

"We start out with a bag of amino acids, we shake it up, and we reach into the bag to pull out the first one.
1. Odds of pulling out "alanine" are 1/20.  [we pull out a 2nd]..."

I'd seek a refund from the guy (or gal) who taught you molecular biology!

If you are going to pontificate about probability at least get your facts straight. Without considering complicating factors like post-translational modification*, the odds of getting a particular amino acid are dictated by the DNA sequence:

This from Wikipedia (because I couldn't be bothered typing it out myself.)

"Codons are triplets of nucleotides [in a gene] that together specify an amino acid residue in a polypeptide chain. Most organisms use 20 or 21 amino acids to make their polypeptides, which are proteins or protein precursors.
Because there are four possible nucleotides, adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T) in DNA, a triplet has the potential to distinguish between 64 amino acids. Due to this redundancy, many amino acids can be coded by more than one triplet. Organisms often show strong preference for one of the several codons that all encode the same given amino acid. Such preference may arise if the transfer RNA (tRNA) corresponding to the preferred codon translates faster than the alternative codons."

*A short, but by no means complete list of PTM's (not coded for by DNA) found in protein:

-adding extra amino acids,
-adding co-factors,
-covalently adding carbohydrate moieties,

And to complicate your probability equation further:

(1) there are more than twenty amino-acids in existence. For a start there are all the R-isomers of the amino-acids, then there are amino-acids like ornithine.

(2) Then you have to factor in that RNA can take on a dual role, that of recording information and catalysing chemical reactions. This is particularly important because it yields a plausible-, diety-free link between the "primitive primordial ooze" and the first cellular organism.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 8/23, 10:08am)


Post 202

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Robert Winefield wrote:

 

Very little.  He avoided answering specific responses regarding his previous post about the nature of "species."  Then he surfed the World Wide Web, copied an article from Wikipedia, and gave us a data dump.

 

Here's a link explaining that there are only 20 amino acids.

 

As for organisms possessing a preference for anything, that's only true if and when the organisms already come into existence from something non-living, since this discussion had to with abiogenesis.  In that case, there's no DNA, no RNA, no pre-existing codons, no nuttin'.  There was no "RNA World" in the distant past waiting to start doing things.  I've also already posted on Spiegelman's experiment from the 1960s showing that DNA, without a pre-existing cell, de-evolves and gets shorter in length, not longer.  Can DNA molecules that get shorter and less complex be anything that drives evolution, which we know has led to more complex organisms?  I don't think so.

 

Since you're so impressed with yourself on correcting my appalling grasp of biochemistry, you'll graciously perform a calculation yourself in your next post showing what the odds are of producing life ex nihilo.  We're waiting with bated breath.

 


If there was an intelligent designer - where the F*** did he come from? Was *he/she/it* intelligently designed (and if so by who and how did they get here) or did they arise by randomly by chance?

He came from a very tough neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York.  Now he lives on the upper west side.


Post 203

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Bachler wrote:

What makes you look for intelligent design in the first place?

Global disciplinary failure (the discipline being biology) and gross theoretical inadequacy (the theory being Darwin's) by failing to specify any actual plausible chemical pathway -- without resorting to handwaving -- that could have evolved certain structures found in organisms (the flagellum, the vision cascade, the blood-clotting cascade, the immune system).


 


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10Page 0


User ID Password or create a free account.