DNA Translation Catch-22

[Chris†opher Paul]

The noted philosopher of science, the late Sir Karl Popper, commented:

"What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But ... the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.

Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics."

The obvious conclusion is that both the DNA and proteins must have been functional from the beginning, otherwise life could not exist.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3974.asp

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by s0uljah
The obvious conclusion is that both the DNA and proteins must have been functional from the beginning, otherwise life could not exist.

Those aliens who created life on earth were pretty darn smart!

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

I was hoping for a logical rebuttal to this problem.

 

[seebs]

Abiogenesis is something I don't know a whole lot about, but... Consider enzymes and proteins, and more generally, chemical interactions. Many chemicals have interesting side-effects even without anything that "decodes" them; some chemicals tend to "reproduce" if near the correct materials. It wouldn't entirely surprise me if the "leap" could be made.

Note that this is a very secondary issue to evolutionary biology. If God came down and said "Look, I invented DNA, and I set down a microbe, and that's how it started, okay?", then evolutionary biology gets *stronger* as a theory, because its prediction of common descent is finally proven.

Abiogenesis is a much more experimental field than the rest of evolutionary biology; we're still studying the question of which things happen, and how often. (Anyone who claims certain knowledge on this is, IMHO, lying - unless it's God. The rest of us are guessing.)

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by s0uljah
The obvious conclusion is that both the DNA and proteins must have been functional from the beginning, otherwise life could not exist.

The other obvious conclusion is that life did not initially depend on DNA and proteins in the beginning.

Two contrasting but equally obvious conclusions. Perhaps we would have been well advised to look before we leapt - to conclusions not justified by the data.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Equally obvious? I dont know about that.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Bear in mind that what is obvious to one will come as a revelation to another. My post was more a warning against jumping to unwarranted conclusions. One would be equally wrong to jump to any conclusion based on just that little tidbit of information.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Bear in mind that what is obvious to one will come as a revelation to another. My post was more a warning against jumping to unwarranted conclusions. One would be equally wrong to jump to any conclusion based on just that little tidbit of information.

Well, that quote was from the author, not me, I just cut and pasted it.

However, I think it is important to note that the mechanisms that we think evolved seem to prohibit evolution of themselves.

 

[Jerry Smith]

However, I think it is important to note that the mechanisms that we think evolved seem to prohibit evolution of themselves.

Again, they only "seem" to prohibit evolution of themselves if one unwisely jumps to that conclusion - whether it be you or the author. As noted above, theories of abiogenesis that are current today do not start out with DNA and a translating mechanism.

 

[JesusServant]

Is it not well documented that for DNA to exist that you must have enzymes?  And to have enzymes you must have DNA?  Definitely a conundrum.  Thanks for posting this souljah, I was trying to find it a while back and got distracted by the flashing light on my cell phone

 

[Jerry Smith]

s0uljah, Jesus servant - a hint:

DNA is not the only molecule capable of catalyzing protein synthesis or protein replication. RNA also does so, and many proteins are self-replicating.

Perhaps that will help clear up your percieved "condundrum"

 

[JesusServant]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
s0uljah, Jesus servant - a hint:

DNA is not the only molecule capable of catalyzing protein synthesis or protein replication. RNA also does so, and many proteins are self-replicating.

Perhaps that will help clear up your percieved "condundrum"

The way you typed "condundrum" you had me thinking I mistyped it back there   Self-replicating is far from self-conceiving though.  And for you, I return a hint:  Check out the Bible and try seeking God, there really is something to it

 

[Jerry Smith]

The way you typed "condundrum" you had me thinking I mistyped it back there

No I just put it in the proverbial quotation marks because I felt that there really was no conundrum...

And thank you for the witness. I grew up Southern Baptist and have checked out the Bible - at one point I was a believer. . . . so I guess, according to s0uljah's signature anyway, I'm "irretrievably lost".... But thanks for the word, anyway

 

[seebs]

I know other people who would argue that you're permanently saved. You certainly seem to be searching diligently for truth.

However, I have come to realize that I can't stay friends with you until you tell me what the !*#@!#@ your avatar is a picture of.

 

[Jerry Smith]

LOL! I'll PM you. Don't want to spoil it for everybody...

 

[Defending Our Lord]

Originally posted by s0uljah
The noted philosopher of science, the late Sir Karl Popper, commented:

"What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But ... the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.

Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics."

The obvious conclusion is that both the DNA and proteins must have been functional from the beginning, otherwise life could not exist. 

 

Our Lord Aced Biology and Chemistry

 

[JesusServant]

Weird how few scientifically minded people posted in this thread.

So far we have, by someone who seems quite intelligent, "aliens knew what they were doing" and "it isn't a conundrum at all" but no real refutations at all. Hmmm.... It really is a conundrum though, without enzymes, no DNA, without DNA, no enzymes...

 

[seebs]

But it's not; Jerry pointed you at the secret, which is that there are ways other than DNA to code for enzymes, and some proteins are simply self-replicating without the need for enzymes. All the bits are there...

 

[chickenman]

heres a hint guys

DNA -> RNA -> protein

its never DNA -> protein

and RNA -> protein is sufficient without DNA, thats why most (all?) abiogenesis theories don't include DNA as a neccessary starting block (because it isn't neccessary)


go to google, look up "RNA world" and "ribozyme"

P.S. catch 22 is the greatest book ever written

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by JesusServant
Self-replicating is far from self-conceiving though.

Sounds like asexual reproduction to me. Otherwise, what's the diff?