Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Questions college students should ask science professors

Categories
Academic Freedom
Creationism
Education
News
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Students who ask science professors certain questions will be the ones who’ll appreciate the weaknesses in various anti-ID or anti-creation theories. Preferably they’ll ask after they’ve gotten an “A” in the class, maybe even after they’ve gotten their diploma. The ideal IDist or creationist student can hopefully score in the 99th percentile on evolutionary tests, but still understand the difficulties with anti-ID theories like Darwinian evolution.

Jonathan Wells had his list of questions that high school students should ask their biology teachers, and there have been some good responses, thus I didn’t think Wells’ list provided pointed enough questions.

So I’m developing a list for college students interested in ID or creation science. Here are some questions off the top of my head which were occasionally inspired even by anti-IDists or anti-creationists:

1. How can functional proteins form without ribosomes or ribosome-like machines?

2. How can natural selection or neutral evolution evolve poly constrained DNA or any poly constrained systems in general?

3. How did the first organism regulate protein expression and cellular development without regulatory elements or developmental mechanisms?

4. How did any vital organ or protein form given the absence of the organ would be fatal? Absence of insulin is fatal in organisms requiring insulin. How did insulin become a vital part of living organisms? If you say it wasn’t essential when it first evolved, then how can you say selection had any role in evolving insulin without just guessing?

5. How did DNA evolve in a proteins-first or RNA first scenario?

6. How did amino acid homochirality evolve since the amino acids in biotic soup experiments are racemic, plus homochiral amino acids spontaneously racemize outside of living systems? How about DNAs and sugars? If the expectation value is 50% left, how do 100% left or right forms emerge in pre-biotic soups, and more importantly how is homochirality maintained long enough for chemical evolution to work?

7. Don’t dead dogs stay dead dogs and doesn’t Humpty Dumpty stay broken?

8. Describe how a partially functioning ribosomes or any partial implementation of the DNA code could operate in a working cell, and how a such cell can operate without such vital parts.

9. Are most laboratory and field observations of evolution reductive rather than constructive of new coordinated functions? For the sake of argument, let extinction can count as reductive evolution. When bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance, what proportion of cases involved evolution of a new complex protein?

10. Cite an experiment or field observation where a substantially new protein was evolved in real time or is expected to evolve in real time over the next few generations. Nylonase is the most cited example, but that wasn’t a substantially new protein. But even granting that, how many complex proteins are evolving in the biosphere versus those getting lost forever.

11. What new trait in human populations do you expect to become genetically fixed in all 7 Billion or so people, and how fast do you expect that trait to overtake the population in how many generation? If you can’t identify convincingly one or a few traits, how then can you argue for evolution of so many traits in the past?

12. If a species has a population of 10,000, how can selection act in a particulate manner on 4 giga bases of DNA individually? Wouldn’t such a large genome relative to small population size result in lots of selection interference, hence wouldn’t most molecular evolution be neutral of necessity as Kimura asserted?

13. Do geological layers involving permineralized fossils or other kinds of well-preserved fossils require rapid burial? If the burial process is rapid, does it really take millions of years then to make that particular layer that has fossils? If you find C14 in Cambrian fossils not the result of contamination or lab error, does that mean the fossil had a more recent time of death than 500,000,000 years? Given the half lives of DNA and amino acids or other decay processes of biological organisms, how can we account for preservation of these biotic materials for far longer than indicated by their chemical half-lives?

14. Can geological strata form rapidly? What about the university experiments and field observations that show strata can form rapidly? If they can form rapidly, and if fossil presence demands they form rapidly, doesn’t that suggest they formed rapidly?

15. If redshifts in the Big Bang model are discovered to be possibly caused by other mechanisms than relative motion, wouldn’t that put the Big Bang in doubt? Wouldn’t that also raise questions about stellar distances?

16. What is the farthest astronomical distance that can be determined by parallax or very long base line interferometry, and what fraction is that detection distance relative to the claimed size of the visible universe relative to the Big Bang? How do you account for Super Nova by stars not inside galaxies? If so, doesn’t that mean there is a higher probability of Super Nova in a star outside a galaxy by a factor of hundreds of billions if not more? If so, why should this be?

Feel free to list your ideas or improve the list above.

Remember, the goal is the question will be so powerful, that when the student asks the scientist or other authority figure, and when the scientist is forced to admit the truth, the student will realize the weakness in mainstream claims. I didn’t list vague or ambiguous soft ball questions. The strength of the biology questions is in complex design details, not some 19th century Darwinian view of the simplicity of life. I added a few YEC-friendly questions just for fun. A good scientist ought to welcome and value skepticism and hard questions.

I once gambled a little bit on a weaker question that a creationist biology student should ask her anatomy and physiology professor regarding the evolution of hearts. I basically suggested she ask about how the intermediate plumbing can work if it is not all wired-correctly in the first place. Here for example are the some various reptilian hearts:

how does it evolve from a fish heart?

When that biology junior posed that question, she came back the next week at our ID/Creation meeting beaming. She said, “you’re right, there are no transitionals!” I realized then whatever I said might not be as powerful as what professors are unable to say when asked the right questions!

Feel free to add your questions in the comment section or CEU Questions students should ask professors. I’ll be collecting them at a website for future reference which I can direct students to. Thanks in advance.

Photo credits: Encyclopedia Britannica, Quia.com.

Comments
Interesting questions, Scordova, but I think I might be more impressed, and better informed, if you spent your time producing substantive, supportive science instead of engaging in what seems to amount to little more than attempted 'victory by annoyance'.SamHManning
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Dionisio, If you can show a video, that will really help, especially the Illustra Media video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life". The Programming of Life is a bit technical, but I use that too. The impact of the visual experience is more powerful imho than anything we can say. If you are presenting to a Christian audience, you might try following the structure of the argument here, but it is still getting reworked to make it easier to understand: http://www.creationevolutionuniversity.com/idcs/?p=9scordova
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
Art sorry for the delays in releasing your comments. FWIW, I set you up an account at CEU if you wish to record some of your comments there. Your objections and responses are especially welcome since you are a professor of biology. I'm sending your CEU user name and temporary password to the e-mail on file at UD. Thanks again for participating in this discussion.scordova
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
RE: comment # 40 As an exercise for learning, I'm preparing a presentation on this topic for a general (non-biologist) audience. There's much information on this topic out there, but it's hard for me to determine the most valid and accurate answers to those questions. Maybe you can help me with gathering serious reliable information on this subject? Thank you in advance.Dionisio
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Sorry – I’m not good with HTC tags and not sure how to quote. The wiki bit is from “Unlike this simplified model…” to “readers, writers and erasers of the histone code are revealed by a growing body of evidence.”
Thanks for your reply. Try this: <blockquote> readers, writers and erasers of the histone code are revealed by a growing body of evidence. </blockquote> Also, there should be an automatic preview if you scroll down so you can see if you tags are working.scordova
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
Does anyone know the answers to the these simple questions?
What mechanisms determine the fate (functional type & final location) of every cell during different phases of human development from zygote to birth, but specially the first few weeks? How did such mechanism arise gradually? What mechanism determines the timing? Where did that mechanism get from? How did it arise? We know that ongoing research will shed more light on this, but we expect the resulting information from research will reveal wonderfully elaborate choreographies and orchestrations. How did those choreographies and orchestrations gradually arise? How did the intermediate and transitional choreographies and orchestrations look like?
Dionisio
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
I'm tentatively scheduled to make a presentation to college students in a couple weeks. I'll refer them to my CreationEvolutionControversy.com website that will have a set of questions and observations they can discuss with their fellow students and former professors or professors outside their university (because I don't want them getting into confrontations with current professors). I found the students are in a state of disbelief that the establishment can be so wrong. Their eyes can be opened when they actually ask science professionals to defend Darwinian or OOL or whatever claims. I think I'm going to post with the questions the mechanical gear photo: https://uncommondescent.com/biomimicry/mechanical-gear-found-in-living-organism/ and the Troclea challenge http://kgov.com/PZ-Myers-trochlea-challenge I probably will compile several lists. The list by OOL researchers themselves was pretty good! Unfortunately the link is dead, so here is a cut and paste from the topics of a conference of professional OOL researchers:
Proposed Open Questions in OQOL2014 The following is the 15 open questions for your vote. 01. How can we make ordered sequences of amino acids, or mononucleotides by prebiotic means? This question is in fact never asked in the modern research on the origin of life. Do you agree then that we do not know how to make macromolecular sequences in many identical copies under prebiotic conditions? Do we have to wait for this orderly sequence until the genetic code has been developed? 02. Why is the origin of life still a mystery? Premise: Why is the origin of life still a mystery? The turning point nonlife-life has never been put into one experimental set up-actually it has never be clarified from a conceptual point of view either. There are of course several hypotheses, and this plethora of ideas means already that WE DO NOT HAVE A CONVINCING ONE! The most popular is with the RNA-world prebiotic scenario, which has the advantage of providing on paper a theoretical series of IMAGINARY events, each however with an UNINAMIGINABLY SMALL PROBABILITY (be the prebiotic production of a self-replicating RNA, and its eventual transformation into a catalyst for DNA and independently for protein synthesis) Why should this happen, and what about the genetic code? Aside from the problem of experimental implementation, don’t you think we lack (until now) the capability of intellectually conceiving how the turning point really happened? 03. Is the molecular crowding critical for the beginning of life? Quite a dense concentration of macromolecules in cells: Is it an essential condition for origin of life? If so, how was the concentration acquired before the origin of life? Or, was it a result of the evolutionary process? 04. Can Artificial Life or Synthetic Biology contribute to the origin of life? Artificial life deals with life as it might have been. UP UNTIL NOW THESE EFFORTS HAVE NOT BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL, and IT ALMOST APPEARS THAT THERE ARE NO FORMS OF LIFE SIMPLER THAN “OUR” LIFE. Do you have any data that imply alternative forms of life (still within the general category of metabolism + self-reproduction + evolvability) with molecules different from the biological ones? Or, do you think that synthetic biology research can provide a model or theory for the origin of life study? 05. Can catalysts come out from the free ticket of thermodynamics? 06. Can we construct real RNA world and RNA-based biological systems in a test tube? At the early stage of RNA world, RNA molecules should have no functional property. What physical or chemical process mediates the selection of specific RNA? Even when functional RNA enzymes are generated, it still remains a challenge to construct sustained self-replication and metabolic system in which multiple RNA molecules function cooperatively. Once we can construct the precursor of a replication system by a set of RNA molecules, is it possible to emulate another path of evolution in a test tube? 07. What is the origin of genetic code?: Investigating DESIGN PRINCIPLE of aa-tRNA and aa-RS? The genetic code is most essential part for the genetic systems. In the context of the origin of life, a major issue on the genetic code is to understand how the materials relevant to genetic code that can translate the sequence of four bases into a polypeptide. … Can we find or design simple aa-RS and aa-tRNA from the cocktail of molecules (e.g., amino acid, tRNA(-like) molecule, and ATP), which might be relevant to the origin of translation and genetic code? What features are required as a mechanism that ensures robust translation? 08. Prior to genetic code: Is the notion of prebiotic cells conceivable? The simplest cells on our Earth contain at least 500–600 genes, and more generally several thousand. This observation elicits the question, whether this high complexity is really necessary for the simplest form of cellular life, also in view of the fact that early cells in the origin of life and evolution could not have been as complex as modern cells…. Do you think it is possible to construct in the laboratory, models of early cells, displaying a kind of primitive cellular life (self-maintenance + self-reproduction + evolvability), based on a number of genes which is one order of magnitude smaller than the present day simplest cells. Say a living cell with 30–40 genes? [I’d like to know how they can come up with even one gene!] 09. What is the list of prebiotic molecules present in primodal cells? The “free ticket” of thermodynamic control is however not sufficient: if a chemist is given all these compounds in any amount he wishes, he would be unable to make life. For making life, one needs a series of additional reactions and products under kinetic control – enzymes and nucleic acids are not with us because they are the most stable chains. Thus, the origin of life can be traced back to the origin of kinetic control. Do you agree with this statement; and how would you envisage the prebiotic evolutionary bridge between thermodynamic and kinetic control? 10. On Contingency vs. Determinism The proteins (or nucleic acids) existing on our Earth correspond to an infinitesimal part of the theoretically possible sequences – the ratio between possible and existing structures corresponds more or less to the ratio between the space of the universe and the space occupied by one hydrogen atom. The above ratio can be interpreted as an indication that our “few” proteins have not been selected primarily because of distinctive properties (such as thermodynamic or thermal stability, solubility, particular kinetic processes of formation etc…) – but rather due to a most significant contribution of the vagaries of contingency. Do you agree with this statement, and with its corollary, that then life on our Earth, which is based on these “few” proteins, is not an obligatory pathway, but is largely based on contingency? 11. How to Make Prebiotically Long Hetero-Peptides or Hetero-Nucleotides? There are no or rather scanty reports in the literature on how to make under prebiotic conditions long – say 30 residues – specific sequences of co-oligopolypeptides (or polynucleotides) in many identical copies containing say five to six different amino acid residues or three to four bases (the Merrifield method cannot be considered a prebiotic method)… Do you agree then that we do not know – neither conceptually nor experimentally – how to make macromolecular sequences in many identical copies under prebiotic conditions? And if it so, would you not conclude that the bottom-up (sentence ends abruptly) 12. On the origin of catalytic cycles The question. How do you envisage the origin of sequentially catalytized reactions in a prebiotic scenario? And can you provide facts or scientific arguments, not simply beliefs, about this critical point? 13. Life as unity or confederacy 14. Universality – What properties of life are universal? 15. What is the physical mechanisms underlying the assembly of primitive cell-like structures?
scordova
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT
Sorry - I'm not good with HTC tags and not sure how to quote. The wiki bit is from "Unlike this simplified model..." to "readers, writers and erasers of the histone code are revealed by a growing body of evidence." JDDr JDD
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT
Hi Scordova, I’ll admit, I have not given it a huge amount of thought – I am merely perplexed by the complexity of the most fundamental process of life (gene expression and regulation). However my question would be centred perhaps on the epigenetic nature of histones to such an exquisite degree. For example, how did the histone code develop from simple to complex? The histone code allows for complex repression of expression of genes through a series of various modifications. Such modifications include mono-, di- and tri-methylation of lysine (some enzymes can only recognise mono- and di- forms; others the tri- form as well), acetylation, ubiquitination, SUMOlation, citrullination, phosphorylation – the list goes on. Look at what is said about the possible combinations on Wiki: Unlike this simplified model [a modification = repression or activation], any real histone code has the potential to be massively complex; each of the four standard histones can be simultaneously modified at multiple different sites with multiple different modifications. To give an idea of this complexity, histone H3 contains nineteen lysines known to be methylated - each can be un-, mono-, di- or tri-methylated. If modifications are independent, this allows a potential 4e19 or 280 billion different lysine methylation patterns, far more than the maximum number of histones in a human genome (6.4 Gb / ~150 bp = ~44 million histones if they are very tightly packed). And this does not include lysine acetylation (known for H3 at nine residues), arginine methylation (known for H3 at three residues) or threonine/serine/tyrosine phosphorylation (known for H3 at eight residues), not to mention modifications of other histones. Every nucleosome in a cell can therefore have a different set of modifications, raising the question of whether common patterns of histone modifications exist. A recent study of about 40 histone modifications across human gene promoters found over 4000 differentcombinations used, over 3000 occurring at only a single promoter. However, patterns were discovered including a set of 17 histone modifications that are present together at over 3000 genes.[10] Therefore, patterns of histone modifications do occur but they are very intricate, and we currently have detailed biochemical understanding of the importance of a relatively small number of modifications. Structural determinants of histone recognition by readers, writers and erasers of the histone code are revealed by a growing body of experimental data. So how does this evolve? If there is an enzyme that evolves to methylate for example, how does it distinguish between the massive number of sites? You need readers, writers and erasers. Not one, not two – all three. If this suddenly appeared due to random evolutionary chance, you would get all sorts of genes being repressed or activated that were not meant to, resulting in chaotic gene expression patterns. If you do not also evolve the necessary demethylators (or negative regulators of the numerous other modifications) then you are stuck in a permanent state of that modification and what is to regulate the methylating/modifying enzyme? It would wreak havoc in that cell and the cell would die. You could argue that other methylating/modification enzymes present in the cell due to other processes did this job but it is a poor rebuttal due to the locality of this event and the exquisite specificity of it. Furthermore, it is becoming more apparent (and accepted) that very specific histones and their very specific modifications are required for differentiation into various cellular types in developing embryonic stem cells. Thus these modifications are crucial for cell fate, thus essential for complex multicellular organism’s survival to the point where they can reproduce. There are over 50 different histones described I believe, all with different roles most of which we do not understand. It is an incredible system, and just one small example of the stupendous complexity of the molecular machinery found within the cell. It would be naïve to say we have a good understanding of these modifications (even if they are cause or consequence) as we know so little. But their complexity and in many cases, requirement within a cell pose a problem (in my mind) for the arrival of functioning complex multicellular organisms with distinct, highly controlled development via gene regulation (including tightly controlled cell fate). JDDr JDD
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT
I was being facetious Sal. :)Upright BiPed
April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT
Well … okay. Apparently I must asked the wrong kind of question.
The best way to find out is to ask the students which ones they found the most beneficial to them. So far the weakest question, one that didn't make the list, had the most effect that I know of personally, the one referring to heart evolution. What question really did it for me years ago? The Humpty Dumpty question Dr. Wells posed to famed OOL researcher Robert Hazen in front of the GMU faculty and students.scordova
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
Ok, it is late and late in the discussion, so here is my knotty little question: "Professor, is your brain, especially in terms of its function, no more than a physical embodiment of a Universal Turing Machine? If not, how can a purely mechanistic description of life such as evolution hold sway? If so, well, why should I listen to you? A Hah haha ha!!!"Tim
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT
What mechanisms determine the fate (functional type and final location) of every cell during different phases of human development from zygote to birth, but specially the first few weeks? How did such mechanism arise gradually? We know that ongoing research will shed more light on this, but we expect the resulting information from research will reveal wonderfully elaborate choreographies and orchestrations. How did those choreographies and orchestrations gradually arise? How did the intermediate and transitional choreographies and orchestrations look like?Dionisio
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT
Well ... okay. Apparently I must asked the wrong kind of question.Upright BiPed
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
Sal, maybe you can tell us the gist of Cornelius' rebuttal of my essay. The only thing I can see is that he is of the opinion that complex proteins simply cannot arise by the mechanisms that we know gave rise to TURF13, therefore my claims must be wrong. He doesn't cite any data or research to support his incredulity, he just says "I cannot believe it, thus it cannot be" ( in so many words).Arthur Hunt
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
The questions that seem to pertain to the origins of life are hard to take seriously, as they ignore one undeniable fact - namely that the origin of life is all about the origin of ribosomal RNA. (Think about it - all life on earth is but one "created kind ", to use a vernacular that may be familiar to participants here. Everything is the rRNA "kind", everything else is window dressing.) Before one starts asking questions about this matter, I recommend looking up and reading research by Ada Yonath and Loren Williams. We know a whole lot more than can be related in an UD comment and it's all very, very cool.Arthur Hunt
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
Mk, Thanks for the Trochlea challenge. I should add that one! Salscordova
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
On a side note, this is not necessarily proof against evolution but if you want to be fascinated by the complexity of DNA even more go to Wikipedia (fairly accurate on this subject) and look up “Histone”. Read specifically about the modifications of histone and the “histone code” and how incredibly complex it is (mono-, di- and tri-methylation of lysine exquisitely distinguished by regulatory proteins). It is truly astounding. It is also odd that archaea have histones but bacteria do not, but all eukaryotes do (and strongly conserved).
JD, what would be a good question to ask then about histone evolution? Thanks for responding.scordova
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
RNA-world hypothesis is that RNA can potentially fill all the roles in the ‘protein’ production process, since it can act as a template, a catalyst, and a product? That alone renders most of your questions moot.
Yes, exactly, you appeal to the discredited RNA world hypothesis. And you think your glib answers using discredited hypotheses somehow render the questions I posed moot?
Who said anything about there being no mRNA strand? I certainly didn’t.
I didn't either, but was pointing out to the reader the tRNA needed something like an mRNA strand to work with, and you yourself just pointed out this leads to more trouble:
From transcription of DNA
Yes, a little detail you missed in your original response, DNA had to be there too! Amazing what happens when your response is put under a little more scrutiny, it shows you were making generous assumptions like sufficiently specified DNA to provide sequencing information, not to mention DNA existing in the first place! How did those DNA strands with proper stop codons emerge, by random? And that is just the beginning of problems. If such a random strand specifies 1 viable protein in 10,000, the "organism" will be full of junk, not a tightly run ship, probably something that couldn't be alive. It's hard enough for life to run with most of the parts working much less having 99% of the parts junk.scordova
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
You were also assuming that the first organism included both proteins and differentiated cells, neither of which assumptions is justified.
I didn't assume differentiated cells, but a cell that could manage its own construction and replication. But you should be one to talk, because you responded to the question with a unjustified assertion yourself
3. They didn’t.
And then went you around acting like you actually provided credible answers by saying, "where are the HARD QUESTIONS", as if your glib and technically shallow responses somehow demonstrated the weakness of the question posed. A response I'd expect from a scientist would be, "we don't know", not "they didn't, why is this a hard question." In any case, I could modify the question to add, "if the first cell was made mostly of proteins", and that should fix it. Those editorial changes will be made, but the form of the original questions do not diminish the fact your responses were glib, shallow, and full of holes and bald assertions posing as fact, not exactly the circumspect answers we'd expect of a scientist. That's fine, your responses reassured me with a few tweaks most of the questions will be good ones to pass on. Thanks for your participation.scordova
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
Here's a question I actually asked my biochemistry professor in college. There was a question on the test that presented two sequences and asked how the second sequence came from the first or something like that. One of the answer options was that there was no relation between the two sequences. The "correct" option was a fusion event. One of my classmates, a grad student and not in the least sympathetic to ID, answered "no relation" and argued the point with the professor. I chipped in and asked about mutation rates, to which the professor quoted a large number at me. I responded with genome size or something, warming to a debate (this was an online forum for the class). Then the professor said that he thought the evolutionary process was basically over and that's why there wasn't a lot of observed evidence for his preferred answer. (!) I just stopped talking at that point and let that be the final word. :Dtragic mishap
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Ah the good old RNA hypothesis rendering DNA/protein points moot! Reminds me of my favourite publication on the subject, which is quite aptly entitled: The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others)(a). It is equally as fun to read. Seriously, do read it. I am actually not sure if it is genuine or an actual joke. It even suggests that food science (compares the pre-biotic soup of being either like vinegarette or mayonnaise) could aid in determining the origin of life. If I submitted a paper anywhere like that about anything else speculative apart from OOL theories that supported naturalistic means, even with such a low impact factor I would be laughed at. This is why people find it hard to take any of this seriously - naturalistic evolutionists like to make out to IDists and creationists that the early world theories like the RNA world are well established, based on good science and generally have scientific concensus but all of this could not be further from the truth. The only reason many of these theories are entertained or given more credit than they are due (as they are based on virtually no evidence) is there is no naturalistic alternative and the worst possible concept is to give an IDer/creationist any reason to say their interpretation/theory on OOL has some validity. When everything relies on pure speculation it fails to become real science. On a side note, this is not necessarily proof against evolution but if you want to be fascinated by the complexity of DNA even more go to Wikipedia (fairly accurate on this subject) and look up "Histone". Read specifically about the modifications of histone and the "histone code" and how incredibly complex it is (mono-, di- and tri-methylation of lysine exquisitely distinguished by regulatory proteins). It is truly astounding. It is also odd that archaea have histones but bacteria do not, but all eukaryotes do (and strongly conserved). Science amazes me even after all the years I have studied it I never fail to be amazed by the incredible complexity of cellular processes and regulation, and to me it just points to incredible design (by a Designer). JDDr JDD
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
A. we don’t know evolution can even evolve a singly constrained system like DNA coding for functional proteins, much less poly constrained — so that is just argument from assertion
But that wasn't what you asked. You asked this:
2. How can natural selection or neutral evolution evolve poly constrained DNA or any poly constrained systems in general?
You didn't ask about the DNA system, you asked about the DNA - and now you've moved the goalposts. We know polyconstrained DNA can evolve because we can see polyconstrained DNA evolving.
B. neutral evolution will scramble polyconstrained DNA and natural selection can’t find it because local fitness peaks will prevent it from finding polyconstrained solutions, the Cornell papers explored the problems.
Would you be referring to the paper by one Jorge Fernandez which 'demonstrated' the unlikelihood of new polyconstrained sequences evolving by including an arbitrary thousand-fold bias in favour of the original? RoyRoy
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Roy for transcription you still need DNA polymerase. Can RNA function as that too?Joe
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
I asked:
3. How did the first organism regulate protein expression and cellular development without regulatory elements or developmental mechanisms?
and Roy responded
they didn’t
So they’d be more dead than a dead dog. Like taking a bunch of parts without any means of assembly, not to mention the parts are not in the right proportions, possibly missing parts as well at a critical time. Essentially a junkyard….
Where are the HARD questions?
I was assuming they were hard because the answer required that the result was a living organism, apparently that implicit requirement was lost upon you.
You were also assuming that the first organism included both proteins and differentiated cells, neither of which assumptions is justified. Apparently your implicit requirement was lost on you, or you might have understood that I was pointing out that the first organism didn't regulate protein expression because if it had no proteins it wouldn't need to. Your question is topologically equivalent to asking how elephants travel to the moon without spaceships, and is equally trivial to answer. RoyRoy
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
Your response was awfully dismissive, and for the reader’s benefit, I’ll point out why the above dismissive response creates more problems than it solves. What codons does that supposed tRNA bind to if there is no mRNA strand to provide codons?
Who said anything about there being no mRNA strand? I certainly didn't.
A codon that is part of an mRNA sequence that came from where?
From transcription of DNA (or RNA if proteins preceded DNA rather than vice versa) by a ribozyme rather than an enzyme. Were you not aware that RNA molecules can catalyse biochemical reaction? Or that the main reasoning behind the RNA-world hypothesis is that RNA can potentially fill all the roles in the 'protein' production process, since it can act as a template, a catalyst, and a product? That alone renders most of your questions moot.
Speculations abound, but has anybody poured a random mix of amino acids, tRNAs and expect to get a sufficient protein generating machine in place?
No, nor will they since the appropriate timescales and volumes are unachievable.
The closest thing we have are things like a recently dead dog, and you yourself said dead dogs stay dead dogs.
I said no such thing. RoyRoy
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Ah, sweet memories. I have a great story about censorship by my communications 501 professor related to this, but for another time. Two actual questions I asked which crushed my professors' spirits: 1.) Given that we can slow light in filter and that deceleration is simply negative acceleration, that the initial expansion of the universe required different speed for light, and that highly massive bodies bend and disperse light, do you HONESTLY believe that photons are objectively massless and that light speed is universally constant? (Asked of Astrophysics III prof - the obvious answer is no, which confounds all estimated distances, ages and chemical makeup of most of cosmology and distant astronomy) 2.) Doesn't it bother you at all that historical "science" cannot be deduced from any evidence without a precommitted conclusion? (Asked of Anthropology 501 prof, after his lecture on common descent, after I handed him a Smithsonian magazine article showcasing fossils which were just shy of preCambrian rabbits) The follow up to this question could be, "why doesn't the talkOrigins website even mention the work of Jerry Macdonald?"jw777
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
hi scordova. here is 3 questions: 1)how the trochlea in the eye evolve step wise? http://kgov.com/PZ-Myers-trochlea-challenge 2)how an organic- self replicat motor(flagellum)its not evidence for design?the evolution answer is becuse it is have a self replicat system. but from logical prespective- its not logic at all. a self replicat watch for example is more complex and unique then regular watch. so a self replicat watch is even more design then non one. 3)how the Bombarder Beetle evolve its unique system step wise? http://www.explorationfilmsblog.com/post/35721293028/one-of-the-strongest-creatures-on-earthmk
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
More questions: 1- Is there a way to model unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution? If yes please do so 2- Does unguided/ blind watchmaker evoluion have any predictions borne from its proposed mecahnsims? If yes what are they 3- Does unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution have any testable hypotheses? If yes what are they Every professor asked these questions will fold and be forced to admit evolutionism is just dogma and not science.Joe
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
Questions to ask should include measurements as in how many mutations does it take to get an upright biped from a quadruped? Or how many mutations would it take to produce a flagella? No measurements, no math, no scienceJoe
April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply