Group

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:20:16 -0000, paulcanagnostopoulos wrote
Re: Creationist useage of quotations and marching orders:

>>PK>The evidence for this is what? How would an
>>encoded region of DNA arise connected with rybozyme
>>function? Pure chance?

PA>... It doesn't take much imagination
>to picture how DNA could arise from RNA.

Only if you ignore the fact that this would have happened to a *living*
organism, and yet it couldn't have missed a beat when its genetic system
changed from RNA->proteins to DNA->RNA->protein!

Dawkins' comments (see tagline) on saltations apply here (substitute
"organisms" for "animals"), i.e. that these "are not ideal essences hanging
in the sky, waiting, like designer dresses, to be adopted by real animals.
Real animals is all there ever was: living, breathing, walking, eating,
excreting, fighting, copulating real animals, who had to survive and who
can't have been dramatically different from their real parents and
grandparents." It is not enough to say that these were simple organisms
(there is no such thing):

"Protozoa are often erroneously referred to as `simple' organisms.
There are no simple organisms. Many are exceedingly complex and
are the most elaborately organized of all known cells. Protozoa
carry on all the basic functions of multicellular animals and are
amazingly efficient in the performance of these functions. Each is
extremely well adapted to its own environment. They are
widespread ecologically and are found in fresh, marine, and
brackish water and in moist soils." (Hickman C.P. & Hickman
F.M., "Laboratory Studies in Animal Diversity," McGraw-Hill:
Boston MA, Third Edition, 1995, p.23)

the same principle applies: "For a new body plan-a new phylum-to spring
into existence, what actually has to happen on the ground is that a child is
born which suddenly, out of the blue, is as different from its parents as a
snail is from an earthworm. No zoologist who thinks through the
implications, not even the most ardent saltationist, has ever supported any
such notion" (see tagline).

Yet for an organism to change from RNA->protein to DNA-
>RNA>protein would be *more* "different from its parents" than "a snail
is from an earthworm" because "a snail [and] ... an earthworm" share the
same DNA->RNA>protein system as does a bacterium and a
bacteriologist. A change from RNA->protein to DNA->RNA->protein
would mean that many things would have to change *simultaneously* and
in *coordination*. For example, at a bare minimum the new DNA double
helix would have to be unzipped, read, transcribed into an mRNA
transcript, rezipped and then error-checked, all by RNA enzymes (as
happens now). And pure nucleic acid bases and left-handed amino acids
would have to be immediately available in a cell membrane. For such an
irreducibly complex system to form spontaneously would be so improbable
that it would be *effectively* impossible.

I have added the above quotes to section PE 7.5.6 "Problems of origin of
life approaches ... RNA first"
(http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe07orlf.html#orgnlfprblmsfprchsrnfrst)
of my book outline, "Problems of Evolution"
(http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe00cont.html) to jog my memory
when I get to that part of the book's first draft PoE 7.4.9
(http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/PoE07OLf.html#7.4.9)

My Progressive Mediate Creation theory on this in my book "Progressive
Creation" (http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pc09life.html#crtnrgnlfrnfrst)
will be that: 1) this change did happen, but it was a complete, irreducibly
complex self-replicating *system* of *double-stranded RNA* (there is such a
thing):

"RNA is very similar to DNA. Instead of the sugar deoxyribose, it
has just plain ribose (hence the name RiboNucleic Acid), which
has an -OH group whose deoxyribose has an -H one. Three of the
four bases (A, G and C) are identical to those in DNA. The fourth,
Uracil (U), is a close relative of Thymine (T), since thymine is just
uracil with a -CH3 group replacing an -H group. This has little
effect on the base-pairing. U can pair with A, just as, in DNA, T
pairs with A. RNA might be described as using the same language
as DNA but with a different accent. RNA can form a double helix,
similar but not quite identical to the DNA double helix. It is also
possible to form a hybrid double helix which has one chain of
RNA and one of DNA. By and large, long RNA double helices are
rare, RNA molecules being typically single-stranded, though often
folded back on themselves to form short stretches of double helix.
In modern organisms we find RNA used for three purposes. For a
few small viruses, such as the polio virus, it is used instead of
DNA as the genetic material. Some viruses employ single-stranded
RNA; a few use it double-stranded. RNA is also used for structural
purposes. The ribosomes, the complex assembly of
macromolecules which are the actual site of protein synthesis, are
made of several structural RNA molecules, assisted by several tens
of distinct protein molecules. The molecules which act as the
interface between the amino acid and the triplet of bases associated
with it are also made of RNA. This family of RNA molecules,
called tRNA (for transfer RNA), are used to carry each amino acid
to a ribosome, where it will be added to a growing polypeptide
chain which will, when complete, become a folded protein. The
third and perhaps the most important use the cell makes of RNA is
as messenger RNA. The cell does not use the DNA itself for
everyday work but instead keeps it as the file copy. For working
purposes it makes many RNA copies of selected parts of the DNA.
It is these tapes of messenger RNA which direct the process of
protein synthesis on the ribosomes, using the genetic code outlined
in the Appendix." (Crick F.H.C, "Life Itself: Its Origin and
Nature", Simon & Schuster: New York, 1981, pp.174-175)

with RNA enzymes to carry out all the above *minimum* functions; 2)
but such a change could only *plausibly* happen either wholly or partly
"supernaturalistically* by an Intelligent Designer/God.

Now what will I do with all that Nobel prize money? :-)

PA>The big questions are: Where
>did RNA come from, and how did it come to play with proteins?

That is just two of the big questions, when there are at least six: 1)
"Where did RNA come from?" 2) where did proteins come from? 3) "how [and
why]did it [RNA] come to play with proteins"? 4) where did DNA come from?
5) "how [and why]did it [DNA] come to play with" RNA and "proteins"?; and
6. how and why did it all happen *together*.

PA>The straw man is the demand to know how the current protein synthesis
>mechanism arose all of a piece. No one suggests that it did.

Actually Dawkins did, because he knows that "cumulative [natural]
selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of
replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that
we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of
anything less than many generations of cumulative selection":

"So, cumulative selection can manufacture complexity while
single-step selection cannot. But cumulative selection cannot work
unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and
replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we
know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means
of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection! ...
in this chapter we are asking how improbable, how miraculous, a
single event we are allowed to postulate. What is the largest single
event of sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous
luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories, and still
say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life? In order for a
monkey to write 'Methinks it is like a weasel' by chance, it needs a
very large amount of luck, but it is still measurable. We calculated
the odds against it as about 10 thousand million million million
million million million (10^40) to 1 against. Nobody can really
comprehend or imagine such a large number, and we just think of
this degree of improbability as synonymous with impossible. ... So,
there are some levels of sheer luck, not only too great for puny
human imaginations, but too great to be allowed in our hard-
headed calculations about the origin of life. ... The answer to our
question - of how much luck we are allowed to postulate - depends
upon whether our planet is the only one that has life, or whether
life abounds all around the universe. The one thing we know for
certain is that life has arisen once, here on this very planet. ... There
are probably at least 10^20 (i.e. 100 billion billion) roughly
suitable planets in the universe. ... Let us, for the sake of
discussion, entertain the alternative assumption that life has arisen
only once, ever, and that was here on Earth. ... if we assume, as we
are perfectly entitled to do for the sake of argument, that life has
originated only once in the universe, it follows that we are allowed
to postulate a very large amount of luck in a theory, because there
are so many planets in the universe where life could have
originated. ... let us put an upper limit of 1 in 100 billion billion for
the maximum amount of luck that this argument entitles us to
assume. Think about what this means. We go to a chemist and say:
get out your textbooks and your calculating machine; sharpen your
pencil and your wits; fill your head with formulae, and your flasks
with methane and ammonia and hydrogen and carbon dioxide and
all the other gases that a primeval nonliving planet can be expected
to have; cook them all up together; pass strokes of lightning
through your simulated atmospheres, and strokes of inspiration
through your brain; bring all your clever chemist's methods to bear,
and give us your best chemist's estimate of the probability that a
typical planet will spontaneously generate a self-replicating
molecule. Or, to put it another way, how long would we have to
wait before random chemical events on the planet, random thermal
jostling of atoms and molecules, resulted in a self-replicating
molecule? Chemists don't know the answer to this question. Most
modern chemists would probably say that we'd have to wait a long
time by the standards of a human lifetime, but perhaps not all that
long by the standards of cosmological time. The fossil history of
earth suggests that we have about a billion years - one 'aeon', to use
a convenient modern definition - to play with, for this is roughly
the time that elapsed between the origin of the Earth about 4.5
billion years ago and the era of the first fossil organisms. But the
point of our 'numbers of planets' argument is that, even if the
chemist said that we'd have to wait for a 'miracle', have to wait a
billion billion years - far longer than the universe has existed, we
can still accept this verdict with equanimity. There are probably
more than a billion billion available planets in the universe. If each
of them lasts as long as Earth, that gives us about a billion billion
billion planet- years to play with. That will do nicely! A miracle is
translated into practical politics by a multiplication sum."
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London,
1991, pp.141-145)

PA>If what
>you are really asking is how did the current mechanism evolve from
>humble beginnings, then that is a legitimate question from which you
>can draw no immmediate conclusions about what came first.

The problem is that the "humble beginnings" (i.e. the most *minimal*
RNA-protein replicating system), would necessarily be a Von Neumann
machine, i.e. a self-powering, self-maintaining, self-replicating automaton
(http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe08clml.html#clmlclrvnmnmchn).,
which is far beyond our current technology and would make the starship
Enterprise look low-tech.

Remember what I call "*The* problem of the naturalistic origin of life"
(http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe07orlf.html#orgnlfthprblmntrlstc)
*all of these events be linked together* and *move in an appropriate
direction*, would be like "[a] golf ball [that] could play its own way
around [a] course without [a] golfer":

"The search for ribozymes evokes the same feeling of achievement
and beauty in me that I get when I see a skilled golfer playing a
difficult course at well under par. To imagine that related events
could take place on their own appears as likely as the idea that the
golf ball could play its own way around the course without the
golfer. We can, of course imagine that natural forces would lend a
helping hand. A hurricane could move the ball down the course,
and occasional floods might "putt" the ball into the hole. A small
earthquake could then remove it and place it on the next tee.
Perhaps each of these events could be simulated if we tried hard
enough. But to insist that *all of these events be linked together*
and move in an appropriate direction puts our origin into the realm
of Morowitz's odds [10^100,000,000,000 to 1]." (Shapiro R.,
"Planetary Dreams: The Quest to Discover Life beyond Earth,"
John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, p.104. My emphasis)

A "skilled golfer" (i.e. an Intelligent Designer) could play this difficult
course at well under par", i.e. make simultaneous coordinated moves
towards the distant goal of a DNA->RNA-> protein system, but a `blind
watchmaker' (who doesn't even exist until there is the most *minimal*
RNA-protein replicating system) could not.

[...]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:23:06 -0000, paulcanagnostopoulos wrote
Re: Creationist useage of quotations and marching orders: [...]

>AC>So stop already, and let's get to work.

PA>Okay, let's do. What is the direct evidence for intelligent design?

Again, what "evidence for intelligent design" would Paul A accept?

Again, if the answer is "none", then why keep asking for it (apart from to
give the false impression that Paul A is open-minded on the topic of
"intelligent design", when he isn't)?

[...]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:54:43 -0000, zhimbo@... wrote
Re: Combined response(s) 23-Mar-05:

JN>1. How did I "seem to be claiming expertise (e.g. in "punctuated
>equilibrium" and the "paleontological literature)." [...]

See previous post(s)

JN>2. How did I misquote you? The only words I quoted were "seems"
>and "expertise", and I shortened the concept "'punctuated
>equilibrium' and the "paleontological literature" to my
>word "paleontology" [...]

Thanks to Jim for answering his own question.

JN>3. Why did you deny that I had any training in natural sciences,
>when you don't know me or my background?

See previous post(s)

JN>You still haven't addressed that Darwin explicitly counters and
>denies the absurdity of natural selection producing the eye in the
>sentence immediately following (but unquoted) the sentence quoted by
>Morris and Parker.

See previous post(s)

JN>1) In your snip of my post, I'm criticizing the tactic of "argument
>by quotation". I get the feeling that you think I'm being
>hypocritical ("That's funny...").

The word "hypocritical" is Jim's, not mine.

JN>Make your points about the evidence. Cite references. You can do
>it on the internet just as easily as you can do it in a scientific
>paper.

I *do* "Cite references": that is what my quotes are. For example, if
I just gave the reference in the following tagline quote, i.e.
(Dawkins R., "Unweaving The Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite
for Wonder," [1998], Penguin: London, 1999, reprint, p.203), CED's ~160
mmember would have to look it up, if I did not provide also the quote.

And if Jim thinks just "Cit[ing] references" is enough, without quotes,
then why did Jim post the Morris & Parker quote (without the reference)
in his very first post on CED?:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 01:09:20 -0000, zhimbo@... wrote
Re: Evolutionary misquoting:

>Hello everyone - the name's Jim, although I respond to "Zhimbo" just
>fine.

>The recent discussion on misquoting touches upon a particular
>question I've asked in the past, with little respone, in other
>groups.

>In "What is Creation Science?", by Henry Morris and Gary Parker, we
>can read the following:

>quote: [...]

>Question: "Isn't it unethical for creationists, in order to support
>their arguments, to quote evolutionists out of context?"
>Answer: [...]With only rare exceptions, however, creationists always
>are meticulously careful to quote accurately and in context.
>Evolutionists have apparently searched creationist writings looking
>for such exceptions and, out of hundreds or thousands of quotes
>which have been used, have been able to find only two or three which
>they have been able to interpret as misleading. Even these, if
>carefully studied, in full light of their own contexts, will be
>found to be quite fair and accurate in their representation of the
>situation under discussion. On the other hand, evolutionists
>frequently quote creationist writings badly out of context. [...]In
>any case, evolutionists much more frequently and more flagrantly
>quote creationists out of context than creationists do evolutionists.

[Morris H.M. & Parker G.E., "What is Creation Science?,"
[1982], Master Books: El Cajon CA, Revised edition, 1987, p.304]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[...]

Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So far, this is a fine summary of the orthodox neo-Darwinian view. Now.
in a bizarre passage, Kauffman goes on: `But this appears to be false. One
of the wonderful and puzzling features of the Cambrian explosion is that
the chart was filled up from the top down. Nature suddenly sprang forth
with many wildly different body plans-the phyla - elaborating on these
basic designs to form the classes, orders, families, and genera ... In his
book about the Cambrian explosion, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale
and the Nature of History, Stephen Jay Gould remarks on this top-down
quality of the Cambrian with wonder.' [Kauffman S.A., "At Home in the
Universe," 1996, p.13] As well he might! You only have to think for one
moment about what `top down' filling in would have to mean for the
animals on the ground and you immediately see how preposterous it is.
'Body plans' like the mollusc body plan, or the echinoderm body plan, are
not ideal essences hanging in the sky, waiting, like designer dresses, to be
adopted by real animals. Real animals is all there ever was: living,
breathing, walking, eating, excreting, fighting, copulating real animals,
who had to survive and who can't have been dramatically different from
their real parents and grandparents. For a new body plan-a new phylum-to
spring into existence, what actually has to happen on the ground is that a
child is born which suddenly, out of the blue, is as different from its
parents as a snail is from an earthworm. No zoologist who thinks through
the implications, not even the most ardent saltationist, has ever supported
any such notion. Ardent saltationists have been content to postulate the
sudden bursting into existence of new *species*, and even that relatively
modest idea has been highly controversial. When you spell out the
Gouldian rhetoric into real-life practicalities, it stands revealed as the
purest of bad poetic science." (Dawkins R., "Unweaving The Rainbow:
Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder," [1998], Penguin:
London, 1999, reprint, p.203. Emphasis in original)
Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol). http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Moderator: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign
& http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProblemsOfEvolution/ Book: "Problems
of Evolution" http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/PoE00ToC.html
& http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe00cont.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------