There is a vast network of information flow in a typical cell, and along with that flow there is a vast network of error checking. Damage to DNA sequences is remedied, the transcribing of DNA is checked and corrected, and at the ribosome the translation process is checked and controlled. In fact, recent research has found that the ribosome not only carefully sets up the codon-to-amino-acid translation process for success, but if an error is made the ribosome detects it and takes action after the translation process.When the ribosome detects a translation error it takes action 10,000 times faster than it normally does. "These are not subtle numbers," explained the lead researcher. As one report explains, "the ribosome exerts far tighter quality control than anyone ever suspected."
How does the ribosome do it? The ribosome--which creates proteins--consists of RNA and protein molecules. If the ribosome is the machine that builds proteins, then from where did the ribosome's proteins come in the first place? Evolutionists believe that initial versions of the ribosome--the proto-ribosome--had only the RNA molecules and the proteins came later.
Perhaps so, but the translation task is not simple, and the ribosome's proteins do not appear simply to be innocent bystanders that evolution, for no particular reason, kludged onto the ribosome. Rather, the proteins are deeply embedded in the ribosome, and appear to be important for both the ribosome's structure construction and conformation. This is probably why RNA-only proto-ribosomes don't seem to work.
But this is not all. Even ignoring the problem of obtaining an RNA-only translation machine, the evolutionary hypothesis raises the question: From where did the protein-coding sequences come which it would translate? In other words, even if a long sequence of RNA residues just happened to assemble and fold and function as a proto-ribosome, why would it be selected for if there were no protein-coding sequences lying around? One could add to this a long list of other requirements, such as a ready made pool of amino acids, and of course something for the newly minted protein to do.
Of course evolutionists can always speculate. For instance, perhaps a functional RNA molecule just happened to also code for a useful protein. How convenient.
Fortunately, in a world where confessions of evolution's heroics are rare, one nobel laureate scientist gave this judicious observation: "How evolution managed to progress from making a random peptide to messenger-directed synthesis, we haven't a clue." And yet evolution is a fact? I think I want my money back.
Random RNA and amino acid sequences can have biological function.
ReplyDeleteRibosomes are highly derived structures. A lot of evolution occurred before ribosomes came on the scene.
Great post! But, when scientists say that evolution is a fact, aren't they just referring to the fact that life changes over time? How life changes over time and to what extent are questions addressed by the various theories of evolution, which, of course are not facts. Also, many evolutionists would say that evolution does not attempt to address origin of life questions, which is really what your post is about.
ReplyDeleteRandom RNA and amino acid sequences just do not form by themselves.
ReplyDeleteAnd there isn't any evidence that living organisms can function without ribosomes.
Also the origin of life directly impacts any subsequent evolution.
So discussing evolution without that origins is just wrong.
But anyway-
ribosome is a genetic compiler
Yarus et al., is interesting but it opens up other issues.
ReplyDeleteFor one the RNA, once latched on to the amino acid via stereochemstry, needs a mechanism for releasing it otherwise there will be an issue with folding once the chain is complete.
Nevermind the problem of getting the proper RNAs and amino acids in the first place
DaveW:
ReplyDelete"Great post! But, when scientists say that evolution is a fact, aren't they just referring to the fact that life changes over time?"
No, even Genesis says that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCornelius -
ReplyDelete"No, even Genesis says that."
How specific is Genesis on HOW?
"one nobel laureate scientist gave this judicious observation: "How evolution managed to progress from making a random peptide to messenger-directed synthesis, we haven't a clue." And yet evolution is a fact? I think I want my money back."
How is this logic any different from a God of the Gaps argument?
Ritchie,
ReplyDeleteHow specific was Darwin on HOW?
Genesis was never meant to be a precise scientific account.
And how is archaeology any different than a "scribe of the gaps"? Or a stone-cutter of the gaps?
Joe G -
ReplyDelete"Genesis was never meant to be a precise scientific account."
Well I can't argue with that.
"And how is archaeology any different than a "scribe of the gaps"? Or a stone-cutter of the gaps?"
Archaeology??! Seems a bit of an odd question, but still...
Archaeology is the study of structures and artifacts from times past. The key point here is that it, like any other scientific field, studies the positive evidence that it does produce, rather than seek to draw conclusions from the gaps in our knowledge.
This is the problem with any type of logic that points to holes in our knowledge and draws conclusions from it - these holes tend to be filled in time.
Suppose next week biologists came up with a completely water-tight, thoroughly well evidenced explaination of exactly how evolution managed to progress from making a random peptide to messenger-directed synthesis. What then? Would you or Cornelius accept this as positive evidence in favour of the theory of evolution and add this to the already substancial pile of evidence supporting it, perhaps revising your opinions on exactly how credible you consider the theory to be, or would you simply ignore it and focus on another biological problem which the theory of evolution has not thoroughly explained yet and imply the theory is flawed because of THIS conundrum?
Ritchie,
ReplyDeleteThe design inference is based on positive evidence.
BTW I was an evolutionist until I started looking more closely at the data.
And yes if someone presented some positive testable data I would accept it.
Very well. Please consider me a blank canvas, if you will. I certainly do accept the theory of evolution, but I would like to think I hold objective open-mindedness in highest regard. If someone could show me convincing evidence I was wrong in my presumptions I would like to think I would be big enough to accept that.
ReplyDeleteCould you please direct me to some of this positive evidence which swayed you to Intelligent Design?
Perhaps beginning with what you consider to be a precise definition of the theory and what you think it reveals about the workings of our world...
Ritchie,
ReplyDeleteYou accept the theory of evolution- based on what positive evidence?
That way I can understand what level of evidence you will accept.
Ya see as I posted above the ribosome is a genetic compiler. And to do that requires knowledge.
Blind, undirected molecules do not have such knowledge.
IOW, Ritchie, the ribosome is positive evidence for the design inference.
However I have more:
Supporting Intelligent Design
Joe G -
ReplyDelete"You accept the theory of evolution- based on what positive evidence?"
Here is a very brief summation of evidence which supports the theory of evolution. A can go into more detail on any specific point you want:
THE GENE - It was a specific prediction of evolution is that children inherit specific traits from their parents. This is something we take for granted these days, but it was not at all an established fact in 1859. For evolution to be true, there needed to be a specific vehicle by which parents pass on their biological information to their children. This was a prediction vindicated by Gregor Mendel's law of the independent assortment of heriditary particles. Written in 1866, it was inititally ignored, to be rediscovered and become the basis of an entire branch of science - genetics.
GENE SEQUENCES - If common descent is correct then descendents of shared ancestors inherit the genes of those ancestors. Again, this fundamental principle of evolution has been verified. Genetics shows us a tree of life - of relatedness between all species on Earth, which all share exactly the same building blocks: DNA.
FOSSIL RECORD - The pattern of the fossil record is a statistically unlikely prediction. It necessitates a particular pattern. Yet it is a pattern which is indeed real. Species do not suddenly appear out of nowhere. The fossil record clearly shows how huge animal groups (for example, mammals) come from a shared ancestor. Again we take this as obvious, but that's because we know with hindsight that it is correct. It didn't have to be. We could have all sorts of animals popping up here and there throughout history from nowhere. But we don't. We can trace, for example, mammals back to a specific time in history before which we find absolutely none. If a single fossil were ever to be discovered in the wrong place (the famous 'rabbit in the Cambrian'), the whole theory would come crashing down. But in all the thousands of fossils we have, I know of none which contradict the pattern absolutely necessary for natural selection. And if such a fossil did exist, there are people who would make it their business to make such discoveries widely known.
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY - Linked to genetics. Animals share the characteristics of common ancestors. Every amphibian, reptile, mammal and bird, for example, share the same arrangement of bones. This can be further broken downwhen we look at more recent common ancestors - all mammals share a skeleton which is more similar, all rodents share a skeleton which is more similar still, etc.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION - If two specific species descended from a common ancestor, then they cannot possibly live in two utterly seperate and inaccessible places. Every species of lemurs, for example, live on Madagascar. Why? Because a common ancestor of them all lived there. Caves often have unique ecosystems. Speciation patterns again provide positive evidence for evolution.
WITNESS - The last point I will raise is that we can witness evoltuion in action for ourselves!
http://www.physorg.com/news127667797.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
"IOW, Ritchie, the ribosome is positive evidence for the design inference."
ReplyDeleteHow so? Something does not support design inference simply by default just because evolution cannot account for it (a point I am less than convinced on, btw). How is this positive evidence for design inference?
In fact the site you led me to needs rather a lot of clarification on a few points.
Firstly I can find no direct succinct definition of what the Intelligent Design theory actually is or how we might test for it. The best I can deduce is that is says the universe is the product of intelligent design, or that it investigates the effects of intellignece. Is this accurate?
Then there is your design hypothesis. I'll skip over the bit about the universe (though I'll address that too if you wish...?) and concentrate on the bit about living organisms.
You claim it is simply a fact that irreducibly complex systems exist. Do they? To my knowledge, this is not a fact at all. To my knowledge, no biological system has ever been shown to be truly irreducibly complex.
Instead, we have witnessed apparent 'irreducibly complex' systems arising through evolution.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a41bd4aafb759fc0?dmode=source
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html#creationists:ic
It is also worth pointing out that in 1918, Nobel prize-winning biologist Herman Muller outlined the idea of apparant irreducible complexity and cited it as an expected result of evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep06.html
So irreducible complexity really doesn't shape up as a very good argument for Intelligent Design.
I'm afraid your assertions on 'command and control' will need an explanation here too, please.
Ritchie,
ReplyDeleteMethinks you are confused.
1- "Evolution" is not being debated.
2- Mendel was a Creationist
3- Gene sequence similarities can be explained by bot a Common Design and convergence:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100125123219.htm
4- The vast majority of the fossil record (95%) is of marine invertebrates void of the pattern you speak of.
5- Species do suddenly appear out of nowhere.
6- Comparitive anatomy- linked to Common Design and convergence
7- Even YECs accept speciation via divergence
8- Witness evolution is not being debated!
Ritchie,
ReplyDeleteApparently you do not understand what is being debated.
But anyway- To my knowldge living organisms are irreducibly complex.
That is they is a minimal functionality required.
Also every example Dr Behe has provided still stands.
Muller didn't even touch on the molecular data.
All he did was try to explain away what was observed- he never demonstrated anything, just gave a story.
Then you link to genetic algorithms- you definitely don't know what you are talking about- GAs are programmed to provide a specific response- a targeted search.
In the end there isn't any data the new complex protein machinery can arise via blind, undirected processes- such as the accumulation of genetic accidents posited by the theory of evolution.
Joe G -
ReplyDelete"1- "Evolution" is not being debated."
Oh good.
"2- Mendel was a Creationist"
Yes. So was Darwin, at first. So what?
"3- Gene sequence similarities can be explained by bot a Common Design and convergence"
Is there any evidence ID does NOT account for?
"4- The vast majority of the fossil record (95%) is of marine invertebrates void of the pattern you speak of."
Can you back up this assertion?
"5- Species do suddenly appear out of nowhere."
Do they? Such as?
"6- Comparitive anatomy- linked to Common Design and convergence"
See my reponse to 3.
"7- Even YECs accept speciation via divergence"
Good. But that does not stop it being evidence for evolution.
"8- Witness evolution is not being debated!"
Again, good. But that does not stop this being evidence for evolution either.
"Apparently you do not understand what is being debated."
Don't I? Oh dear. You said the design inference was based on positive evidence. I asked you what evidence persuaded you that your acceptance of the theory of evolution was wrong and to embrace Intellignet Design instead. And so far all you have provided me with is the demonstrably flawed notion of irreducible complexity.
You seem to prefer to refute evidence for evolution. Which is not the way science works. Intelligent Design does not 'win' by default if you can pick enough holes in evolution. Intelligent Design needs to account for the evidence entirely under its own merit.
So again, what positive evidence supports Intelligent Design?
"Also every example Dr Behe has provided still stands."
Every example he provided where? He has not written a single article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal explaining, demonstrating or detailing Irreducible Complexity, despite the fact that it is his own brain-child.
The links I sent you detail examples of constructs which would count as irreducibly complex under Behe's definition, yet which have evolved into existence. Clearly there is a problem with the notion.
Ritchie,
ReplyDeleteEvolution is not being debated.
That you keep harping on evidence for evolution proves that you don't know what you are talikng about.
Evidence for evolution is not evidence for a mechanism.
The debate is about mechanisms.
Yes there is evidence ID does not account for- If you knew anything about ID you would know what that is.
The fossil record- read the literature- it backs up what I said just fine.
Dr Behe's premise isn't in peer-review and neither is anything that supports your position.
The links you sent have already been refuted.
Talk Origins is useless like that- they are starwman makers.
"Evolution is not being debated."
ReplyDeleteIntelligent Design is. I was only 'harping on' about evidence for evolution because you asked me to provide you with some.
Now I am asking you to provide me with evidence for ID.
"Yes there is evidence ID does not account for- If you knew anything about ID you would know what that is."
Such as?
"The fossil record- read the literature- it backs up what I said just fine."
It does not. Kindly provide a link which could back up your assertion.
"Dr Behe's premise isn't in peer-review..."
Yes, which marks it out as highly scientifically dubious.
"...and neither is anything that supports your position."
What do you mean by 'my position'? You surely cannot be talking about evolution, since that isn't being debated. So what do you mean?
"The links you sent have already been refuted."
By whom? Where? Surely you don't mean by you in your last post?
Ritchie,
ReplyDeleteID is OK with evolution.
YEC is OK with evolution.
And I have provided you with evidence for ID.
As for the fossil record by a vowel.
Marine invertebrates make up about 95% of the fossil record.
That is an undisputed fact.
And your ignorance about it is not a refutation.
As for Dr Behe's claim not being in peer-review- your position- evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents- doesn't have anything in peer-review to support its grand claims.
As for the refutations of the links you provided they have been refuted by various IDists.
As I said the genetic algorithms use a targeted search.
And that alone goes against the blind watchmaker.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJoe G
ReplyDelete"ID is OK with evolution."
Good. Well if this is the case, what is the objection to the idea that all life on Earth evolved naturally?
What, in short, is the basis of the 'theory' of ID?
"YEC is OK with evolution."
I don't think that's true at all. Leading Creationist Lee Strobel, for example, denies the truth of evolution. His book Case For A Creator is a masterpiece of religious wishful thinking clouding scientific reasoning. And he's far from alone.
"And I have provided you with evidence for ID."
You have not. You have mentioned Irreducible Complexity - a concept which is serevely flawed. If that is all the evidence you have to build a case on, then it is flimsy indeed.
"Marine invertebrates make up about 95% of the fossil record."
Yes. I'm not disputing that. But you said 95% of these marine fossils void the pattern I speak of. Unless you can back that claim up, I call 'bulls**t' on that one.
"your ignorance about it is not a refutation."
In principle, true. But that does not justify you making stuff up and then calling me ignorant of it when I ask you to back it up!
"As for Dr Behe's claim not being in peer-review- your position- evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents- doesn't have anything in peer-review to support its grand claims."
Nonsense. There is an entire scientific journal specifically dedicated to new research on evolution:
http://www.evolutionsociety.org/
In your own words, your ignorance about it is not a refutation.
"As for the refutations of the links you provided they have been refuted by various IDists."
Who? Where? Show me.
"As I said the genetic algorithms use a targeted search."
Immaterial. The point remains that irreducibly complex structures were built - naturally. Through evolution.