Monday, March 12, 2012

An Evolutionist Just Gave Up On a Fundamental Just-So Story (And Then Made Up Another to Replace it)

Which came first the chicken or the egg? In evolution’s case, the question is between DNA or proteins. The DNA stores the data to make the proteins, but proteins do things (like get the data out of the DNA). It is all so circular: proteins operate on DNA to get the data to make … themselves. When a new individual is conceived, the zygote has both already in place to begin with. But how could this whole biological system evolve from a mud patch? And which came first, DNA or proteins? Twenty five years ago evolutionists hit upon a new just-so story to solve this riddle: It wasn’t DNA or proteins, but RNA, that worked the magic. RNA is what the proteins create when they get the data out of the DNA. They create a copy, RNA, which chemically is slightly different. Evolutionists were excited about RNA because it can store data like DNA, and it can do things like proteins. It does both, so in the beginning it was an RNA world. It was common to see evolutionists hail this idea as solving those difficult origins problems. One experiment had evolutionists exclaiming that it was “extremely strong evidence for the RNA world.” Here’s how Wikipedia explains the concept:

the RNA world evolved into a world of RNP enzymes, such as the ribosome and ribozymes, before giving rise to the DNA, RNA and protein world of today. DNA is thought to have taken over the role of data storage due to its increased stability, while proteins, through a greater variety of monomers (amino acids), replaced RNA's role in specialized biocatalysis. The RNA world hypothesis suggests that RNA in modern cells is an evolutionary remnant of the RNA world that preceded ours.

All of this is just-so story telling, no different than Antony Flew’s hiker who made up all kinds of silly stories about a mythical gardener. In science we can’t just make up stories about an incredible, never observed, RNA world spontaneously arising, based on religious convictions that evolution must be true. And then say DNA took over this role, and proteins took over that role, due to their vastly superior capabilities.

That would be like saying that the internal combustion engine took over the role of land transportation due to its greater power and versatility, while jet engines took over the role of air transportation due to their greater thrust and reliability.

Eventually this caught up with evolutionists and now a paper is out saying that the RNA World hypothesis doesn’t work. A key molecular machine in the RNA World hypothesis is the ribosome. Not only does it construct proteins, a key function, but it is comprised of both proteins and RNA.

The new paper shows that (if evolution is true) early versions of the ribosome must have included the protein parts. Right there you have a flaw in the RNA World hypothesis. Beyond that, the research suggests that RNA alone cannot construct proteins. As the author explained:

I’m convinced that the RNA world (hypothesis) is not correct. That world of nucleic acids could not have existed if not tethered to proteins. … It appears the basic building blocks of the machinery of the cell have always been the same from the beginning of life to the present: evolving and interacting proteins and RNA molecules.

But the problems don’t stop there. For the results indicate that if evolution is true, then proteins predate the machinery to construct them. Again, evolution makes no sense on these findings. Here is how Russell Doolittle, one of the leading researchers in this area, responded:

“This is a very engaging and provocative article by one of the most innovative and productive researchers in the field of protein evolution,” said University of California at San Diego research professor Russell Doolittle, who was not involved in the study. Doolittle remains puzzled, however, by “the notion that some early proteins were made before the evolution of the ribosome as a protein-manufacturing system.” He wondered how—if proteins were more ancient than the ribosomal machinery that today produces most of them—“the amino acid sequences of those early proteins were ‘remembered’ and incorporated into the new system.”

Ah, yes, that’s a problem alright. Not to worry though, for there is always that next just-so story to save the day. In this case, the evolutionist explains that:

It is therefore likely that the ribosomes were not the first biological machines to synthesize proteins.

There you have it. There was some other fantastic machine, never observed of course, that created proteins before the ribosome came around. Unbelievable. Antony Flew is outdone.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

18 comments:

  1. CH -

    In science we can’t just make up stories about an incredible, never observed, RNA world spontaneously arising, based on religious convictions that evolution must be true.

    You honestly do think scientists are just making this up, don't you? You really do think no-one has any justification for believing anything at all (unless, of course, their belief rests on 'Goddidit'. In that case the belief is TOTALLY justified and reasonable...)

    ...now a paper is out saying that if evolution is true....

    Falling back on the tired old ID trick of presenting a debate on HOW life evolved and dressing it up as a debate on WHETHER life evolved.

    The author of the paper you cited is in fact hypothesising that ribosomal proteins co-evolved with ribosomal RNAs. He is not challenging evolution.

    Do you know why not? Because no serious scientist challenges evolution.

    Not to worry though, for there is always that next just-so story to save the day.

    This is called deduction. It is a perfectly scientific way of advancing knowledge.

    It is certainly more productive that saying 'Goddidit' and then... well... going for a beer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ritchie:

      The author of the paper you cited is in fact hypothesising that ribosomal proteins co-evolved with ribosomal RNAs. He is not challenging evolution.

      Nor did I imply otherwise. I modified the text to clarify.

      Delete
  2. Evolutionists say life looks designed but we must resist the temptation to say so, because it wasn't.

    Why?

    Because is evolved.

    How?

    We don't know all everything but great progress has been made to work out the details. Rest assured the solution is simple and will be discovered soon.

    Tell us what you know for sure so far.

    Well, we don't know anything for sure, but we think that DNA probably evolved from an RNA world.

    How was the RNA manufactured?

    It evolved.

    How?

    We are still working out the details. Boy, you ask a lot of questions... going for a latte?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid that comment just tells us the state of your knowledge on the subject, Neal.

      Do you read a single scientific journal? A newspaper - anything that doesn't report on science without the zealous lens on Creationism?

      If you did then you would discover that scientific discoveries are being made every day. By scientists. Who do science. Thanks to ToE. Biology is an extremely rich and productive area of science. Our understanding of it has come on in leaps and bounds over the last 150 years. ToE has always been an extremely fertile theory which has broadened our knowledge no end.

      ID, by contrast, is the very definition of a non-productive answer. It hasn't even gotten off the starting blocks. It has proposed no mechanisms or identifying marks at all. It has given us nothing to test, verify, nothing. There is a reason ID-ers do nothing but criticise Toe - it is because they don't actually have a working theory of their own.

      - How did life come about?

      - Goddidit. Oh, hang on, not supposed to say 'God' are we? Umm... big mysterious unknown Creator did it then.

      - How?

      - Errr... miracle?

      Delete
    2. "If you did then you would discover that scientific discoveries are being made every day. By scientists. Who do science."

      What a spectacular argument for defending the truth of a discovery that no one has made. Yes, scientists do science and make discoveries. How does that lend credibility to what science has not discovered? Any why to this idea which science has not discovered and not another? Why point out that scientists "do science" if you are unable to distinguish between that science and what someone imagines?

      Delete
    3. Badwiring -

      What a spectacular argument for defending the truth of a discovery that no one has made. Yes, scientists do science and make discoveries. How does that lend credibility to what science has not discovered?

      ??? What?

      Lend credibility to what science has not discovered? What are you talking about?

      The point I was making is that ToE is a fertile theory. Which it demonstrably is. It is a rich source for further investigation. In direct contrast to ID, which just kills science dead in its tracks.

      Delete
    4. ToE allows some questions about the origin of life. which the scientists qualify as "testable", but are really testable?
      The number of variables: time, ignorance about details of atmosphere, chemical environment only allow diversity of hypothesis.
      When a scientist discover a new protein, the questions are: how is its structure, which are the substracts, products, allosteric regulators, cofactors, activity
      and its importance in the metabolism. These questions are related with the design of the protein.
      So, questions about design are not sterile.

      Delete
  3. Cornelius is making the same sort of missrepresntation in regards to discoveries that one particular species was found to be earlier or later ancestor than we originally thought.

    In other words genes are but one example of a replicator in the form of DNA. RNA represents the same information but translated into another chemical form. As such, it's a replicator as well.

    Essentially, what were looking for is the common ancestor of DNA, which would also represent a form of replicator. Was this RNA alone? What was the exact order in which replicators appeared? Exactly what form did the first replicator take?

    Cornelius' objection in this post is essentially the same as claiming evolution is "wrong" because new discoveries add an intermediate ancestor where none what thought to have existed before, or shuffle the order in which they occur, etc.

    The exact order and identity of the DNA ancestors is what's in question here, not if replicators were involved.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This paper is a major blow to the RNA world hypothesis. It says that proteins have been around just as long as RNA. Unless it's refuted, kiss RNA world bye-bye.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This paper is a major blow to the RNA world hypothesis. It says that proteins have been around just as long as RNA. Unless it's refuted, kiss RNA world bye-bye.


    Without RNA world (flimsy as it was) the materialists don't really have anything on OOL.

    Pretty much all they are left with now is shaking their fists at the heavens and trying to shout down ID theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pretty much all they are left with now is shaking their fists at the heavens and trying to shout down ID theory.

      Why, what explanation does ID propose? What well-evidenced mechanisms can be called on in support of ID's explanation?

      ID has no explanation beyond 'It was magic'. That is not a scientific theory, it is just religious dogma.

      Delete
    2. Ritchie,

      ID theory simply states that the specified complexity found in even the simplest lifeforms requires an input of information from an intelligent agent to create.

      We see this confirmed in situations, for example, where Craig Ventor created an artificial lifeform. That required an extreme amount of work and input of information to accomplish.

      If you want to falsify ID theory, all you have to do is demonstrate a simple lifeform self-assembling under the conditions of the early earth with no intelligent input of information. Do this, and I will concede that you are right.

      Delete
    3. wg -

      ID theory simply states that the specified complexity found in even the simplest lifeforms requires an input of information from an intelligent agent to create.

      HOW? How was that achieved? Any ideas?

      We see this confirmed in situations, for example, where Craig Ventor created an artificial lifeform. That required an extreme amount of work and input of information to accomplish.

      Umm, what? Creating an AI proves organic life needed a Creator...? That's a complete non-sequitur.

      If you want to falsify ID theory, all you have to do is demonstrate a simple lifeform self-assembling under the conditions of the early earth with no intelligent input of information. Do this, and I will concede that you are right.

      You clearly have not grasped how science works at all. It should be the ID crowd putting their 'theory' (though it cannot justifiably be called that) to the test. Because until you do that, the positive evidence for it remains zero.

      Besides, it cannot possibly be proved that a miracle did not occur. Magic/miracles are the only real mechanism ID/Creationists are honestly proposing, and they cannot ever be discounted. ID theory is unfalsifiable, and you are asking for impossible evidence.

      Delete
  6. WG: Without RNA world (flimsy as it was) the materialists don't really have anything on OOL.

    Not much of a surprise here, as this is the same crowd that apparently thinks discoveries that result in adjusting the particular order of evolutionary ancestors falsifies evolutionary theory as a whole.

    Our theory of the OOL is based on the evolution of biological replicators, which eventually leads to the current DNA / RNA replicators we observe today.

    This theory calls in to question just this, the order of ancestors for DNA / RNA. Nor is the RNA world the only "world" under serious investigation.

    That this discovery leaves us with nothing is, well, nothing but hot air.

    Comments in previous threads have pointed this out, in detail, so it would se seems we're looking at a serious case of short term memory or lack of reading comprehension.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Comments in previous threads have pointed this out, in detail, so it would se seems we're looking at a serious case of short term memory or lack of reading comprehension.


      Scott,

      I don't usually bother to read through your comments, as I find them fairly pointless and boring.


      Our theory of the OOL is based on the evolution of biological replicators


      Whose theory? What's the name of this theory? Can you point me to a link that discusses this in a research paper? Can you create biological replicators out of non-living matter in a laboratory? Get into specifics, instead of dancing around, blowing smoke, and pretending to be smart as you usually do.

      Delete
    2. WG,

      Part of the underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory is that DNA and RNA are a form of biological replicator. As such, any origin of life theory predicts aspects of earlier cells would also take the form of a replicator.

      So, OOL researchers are looking for exactly what form replicators took and in which order. A discovery that RNA came later or earlier in this order doesn't mean we're let with "nothing" on the OOL. In fact, it's the opposite as discarding errors in our theories is the means by which we create knowledge.

      As for specific papers, here's at least one discussing replication based on a cursory google search.

      The evolution of replicators.

      However, there is no special "name" for this as it represents how evolutionary theory has become more accurate and explained more phenomena over time.

      It's unclear how you can criticize a theory you yourself do not understand. Then again, I'm being charitable in assuming you want to have a rational, reasonable discussion on the subject in the first place.

      Delete
  7. wgbutler777

    Whose theory? What's the name of this theory? Can you point me to a link that discusses this in a research paper? Can you create biological replicators out of non-living matter in a laboratory? Get into specifics, instead of dancing around, blowing smoke, and pretending to be smart as you usually do.


    Here is a 2010 paper with a short overview of some of the major areas being investigated.

    Controversies on the origin of life

    If you're serious about learning, go to Google Scholar and do a search for Origin of Life Research. You'll get over 3 million papers and articles, including over 130,000 in the last 3 years.

    What research on OoL has Intelligent Design done on a timeline, or a mechanism, or any relevant area?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction. The OOL overview paper was originally published in 2005, so there's been 7 additional years of reserch and discoveries made since then.

      Delete