When you repair a broken pipe, shattered window or cracked sidewalk, you first remove the broken pieces and establish a starting point. Likewise when a break occurs in DNA, the automatic repair machines must first remove the broken, dangling molecules and establish a starting point. It is another fantastic capability of the cell’s DNA repair kit.
Your genome is under constant attack. Radiation and carcinogens from the outside and even the cell’s own chemicals can damage and break the flimsy DNA molecule. When only one of the strands of the double helix breaks, the repair job can take advantage of the complementary strand. Just as DNA is replicated by using one strand as a template, so too the repair job can rebuild the broken DNA by using the unbroken, complementary strand.
But when both DNA strands break the repair job is much more difficult. Like a bridge that has lost a section in an earthquake, you now have two DNA helices floating freely which need to be rejoined. And like the bridge which has broken rebar and chunks of cement dangling off the edge which need to be cleared, the DNA helices have pieces of broken nucleotides which need to be removed.
A repair job begins by cleaning away the damage. And so the proteins that repair DNA breaks begin by cleaning up the damaged site. They first remove the pieces of the broken nucleotides. New research is showing that the protein that so efficiently searches and identifies DNA breaks also performs this clean up job.
This research adds to the other wonders of the cell’s DNA repair kit, such as discussed here, here and here, which make no sense on evolution. The problem is DNA (and RNA) repair is at once complex and necessary. And so we must imagine that evolution created such capabilities very early in the history of life.
And imagine they do. Evolutionists imagine a gradual build up of capability, or they imagine early proteins that were far more versatile. These ancient proteins handled many tasks and, as luck would have it, RNA and DNA repair was one of them.
But there is no avoiding the fact that evolution fails to provide a plausible explanation for how random mutations just happened to create fantastic machines. In this case—as is often the case—the problem is aggravated by the fact that the astonishing complexity had to arise fast and early in the history of life. In fact, in this case, evolution must have been astonishingly fast since most life forms that we know of require these repair kits.
It is not that these DNA repair kits, or the myriad other empirical evidences from biology, by themselves falsify evolution. Such a feat is elusive given evolution’s low specificity and high malleability. Indeed, natural selection has produced a modern creation narrative—the theory of evolution—which is as hardy as any virus. But the narrative does not comport with reality.
Evolution is required to satisfy our metaphysics. Even the mere questioning of evolution immediately raises the specter of those unthinkables. Evolution must be true.
But on the physical evidence, evolution makes no sense. There may be test tubes and Bunsen burners in the laboratories, but believe me, this is all about metaphysics.
Each of us must make a choice and our decision has consequences. We can follow the evidence, or we can follow the dogma. Evolutionists have made their choice. Religion drives science, and it matters.
It's great to see all this good science that confirms the obvious that there has to be a creator. We know from experience that intelligence is needed for design. And we can understand that there had to be a beginning since everything we know has a beginning. Science confirms what almost everyone understands. Thank you Cornelius for bringing the good science to us.
ReplyDelete.
Gem of a quote Dr. Hunter:
ReplyDelete'Indeed, natural selection has produced a modern creation narrative—the theory of evolution—which is as hardy as any virus. But the narrative does not comport with reality.'
I see the critics are already trying to deny the simple point: complexity is required to beget complexity, the repair mechanisms are not random, but very specific, specified complexity is evidence of design.
ReplyDeleteEr...wait. I don't see any critics...yet.
Could THIS be the post that ended the criticism??? Nah!
CH: This research adds to the other wonders of the cell’s DNA repair kit, such as discussed here, here and here, which make no sense on evolution.
ReplyDeleteHow so? Perhaps you could elaborate on what it means to say something "make sense" of anything in particular, or lack there of, let alone the biosphere. Why don't you start there.
CH: The problem is DNA (and RNA) repair is at once complex and necessary. And so we must imagine that evolution created such capabilities very early in the history of life.
You seem to have conflated evolution with, say, Abiogenesis. The difference between the two is entry level biology. One does not need to be an expert to realize this. Furthermore, current theory of Abiogenesis does not suggest early cells were complex or had elaborate repair mechanisms.
CH: Evolutionists imagine a gradual build up of capability, or they imagine early proteins that were far more versatile. These ancient proteins handled many tasks and, as luck would have it, RNA and DNA repair was one of them.
This suggests even more confusion as current theories do not suggest DNA was part of the earliest biological replicator. Rather, we do think that RNA, or something similar to it, played a different role that it does now. It would seem you're extrapolating observations as if someone intentionally designed RNA for a specific task (interacting with DNA) and that it would perform that same task in the earliest cells.
Furthermore, you seem to be assuming the role of genetic material repair was equally important then as it is now. While this would be a significant disadvantage if competing with life we observe today, our theory suggest a relatively event playing field in that all organisms had limited ability to repair their own genetic material.
Again, it seems that you're either unaware of the theory you're critiquing or you're not actually taking the theory seriously by failing to assume it was true in reality, and that all observations would conform to it.
CH: But there is no avoiding the fact that evolution fails to provide a plausible explanation for how random mutations just happened to create fantastic machines.
Actually, I'd suggest it's creationism, in all of it's various forms, that lacks a explanation of how knowledge is created. In fact, I'd suggest you do not think knowledge is created at all. Rather you think we discover it by generalizing observations into theories.
As for evolution, we explain the creation of knowledge in the genome via random mutation and natural selection, which is a form a form of variation and error correction. This falls under the same umbrella as our explanation for our relatively recent and rapid creation of knowledge via conjecture and error correction - the scientific method.
CH: In this case—as is often the case—the problem is aggravated by the fact that the astonishing complexity had to arise fast and early in the history of life. In fact, in this case, evolution must have been astonishingly fast since most life forms that we know of require these repair kits.
Which is yet another example of extrapolating observations by first putting them into a design framework.
CH: But the narrative does not comport with reality.
Are you a scientific realist or an empiricist?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRed: I see the critics are already trying to deny the simple point: complexity is required to beget complexity.
ReplyDeleteIf this is the case, what complexity created God, the designer, what have you?
Red: Er...wait. I don't see any critics...yet.
I guess you haven't looked in the mirror lately as you've just pointed out the flaw in your own argument.
I think the main conundrum is having a system based on errors in the genetic code (Darwinism) produce an error-control system. At the very least, it would go against the flow of the entire system.
ReplyDeleteI share Dr Hunter's awe at the beauty of biology as science has been revealing it. I don't share his presupposition that the origin of life or its subsequent history are dependent on an imaginary supernatural creator.
ReplyDeleteI am also in awe at the scale of the Universe as science has been revealing it. I don't share his religiously inspired presupposition that the scale of the Universe necessarily required supernatural creation.
Burn me at the stake.
Geoffrobinson: I think the main conundrum is having a system based on errors in the genetic code (Darwinism) produce an error-control system. At the very least, it would go against the flow of the entire system.
ReplyDeleteGeoff,
The entire system as a whole is a form of error correction. Variations are created in the genome, which are tested by natural selection. This is similar to how we create knowledge in science. We start out with conjecture to form theories, which we then tested using observations. We then discard those with errors. Just as the system created the knowledge of how to build different species in different environments, the system created the knowledge of how to better correct errors via varying the system and making copies of the results.
Individual genes in an organism's genome are biological replicators. The cell, along with the repair systems, are part of this environment. Genes that produce cells (environments that include better repair mechanism) are more likely to be replicated with higher fidelity.
Also, you seem to be approaching the system as if it was designed to create errors. It's from this framework that the idea of an error-control system producing an error-correction system could seem unlikely. But this isn't what the theory of Neo-Darwinism suggests. Nor is this clear from observations alone. In fact, science doesn't assume RM and NS was intentionally designed for any specific purpose, let along creating errors.
Specially, it's important to note it's a myth that one can extrapolate observations without first putting them in some kind of explanatory framework. In this case, it appeared that you started from a framework that assumed the system was "designed" to make errors as it's primary output, but were unaware of that assumption.
Otherwise, why do you think this be a conundrum?
Pendant,
ReplyDelete"I don't share his religiously inspired presupposition that the scale of the Universe necessarily required supernatural creation."
a) The universe has a beginning according to NASA. Therefore nature was created with the big bang. Therefore, the universe must have a supernatural beginning since whatever created it existed prior to nature.
b) The preceding logic implies that the belief in a supernatural beginning is not a presupposition, but a ration decision.
.
"Burn me at the stake. "
ReplyDeleteHa ha. Pedanski wants to be a martyr. For what cause, Pedantski?
I read about different enzymes and they appear as some sort of chemical machines.
I'm reading on ribosome now - it's mama of all chem - machines. I'll analyze the process and make some diagrams.(one of these days)
Bornagain 77
how are things at UD, bro?
Scott said:"Specially, it's important to note it's a myth that one can extrapolate observations without first putting them in some kind of explanatory framework."
ReplyDeleteThen Elution is nothing more than the extrapolation of actual observations of life, after putted in an explanatory framework. Then ToE is not a fact.
Blas,
ReplyDeleteI'd explain why the conclusion you've reached is incorrect, but that would require you to have an understanding of epistemology, which you apparently lack. Come back when you can define it in your own words.
Peter: a) The universe has a beginning according to NASA. Therefore nature was created with the big bang. Therefore, the universe must have a supernatural beginning since whatever created it existed prior to nature.
ReplyDeleteAnd you know the universe represents the extent of nature, how? It seems you've made a leap without qualifying the connextion. Did NASA tell you that as well.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteYou're doubling down. The smart play is pull back and bet the minimum and watch the flow.
Peter, nice reply.