Criteria for determining design

[ChetSinger]

You are making the assumption that ancient DNA worked in the same was as modern DNA. It is widely suspected that the 3 base DNA codon evolved later on, and that the original codons could have been a single base with the other two bases serving as spacers between codons. This would mean that most mutations would be synonymous mutations, the opposite of what we see in modern DNA. Even more important, the earliest catalysts were thought to be run by RNA and only stabilized by proteins which would leave a lot of room for changes in both.

So you see, you haven't taken everything into account. You are making the unwarranted assumption that the earliest life had to have all of the features of modern life.

Speculate all you want. But I'm not buying it as science until it can demonstrate answers to the questions I have.

 

[Loudmouth]

Speculate all you want.

It is only speculation that species of the past needed the same DNA repair mechanisms.

 

[Loudmouth]

No.

Then what did I get wrong?

I cannot speculate on a history that I don't believe occurred.

We are discussing what ancient life was like, not what you believe or don't believe.

 

[bhsmte]

Speculate all you want. But I'm not buying it as science until it can demonstrate answers to the questions I have.

Just curious, how much effort have you put in to learning about DNA and investigating answers to these questions yourself?

Have you exhausted all means to investigate yourself and still have these questions, or have you decided it doesn't interest you to thoroughly investigate the same?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Speculate all you want. But I'm not buying it as science until it can demonstrate answers to the questions I have.

What about the science that demonstrates that the most basic components of a cell wall can form in certain environmental conditions and retain their form?

 

[PsychoSarah]

As long as nothing but the right things are floating around, I suppose so.


DNA isn't safe within the confines of cell walls right now. It requires regular repair, on the order of every second.

I really think you're content to gloss over the amount of effort required to repair these damages. Here's a paragraph from my earlier wiki link that describes the effort expended to fix a double-strand break.



And guess what? The specifications for these things just happen to be encoded in that very same DNA. So which came first, the 10,000 molecules that fix those breaks, or the specifications for building them?

-_- well, if the components of DNA weren't floating around together, they would have never linked up to form the DNA to begin with. It isn't like these components all assembled to form the DNA in the exact amount to form it, and that there wasn't an excess leftover.

Yes, I understand the mechanism of DNA repair quite well. I also understand that literally the first gene to ever develop could have been for DNA repair. Additionally, there are proteins and other such structures that do not require such maintenance. Regardless, DNA is primarily damaged (bypassing cell walls) thanks to the metabolism of our cells and how it deals with oxygen; something that didn't develop until long after life was well established.

That very same DNA? Says who? One strand could have coded for the repair mechanism, and instigated the repair of every other strand close enough to reap the benefits. We do have multiple chromosomes, you know, and they have different genes to each other.

Plus, the consequences of damage would have been far less significant for a free-floating DNA precursor that only needs to be able to replicate itself and nothing else.

 

[ChetSinger]

Just curious, how much effort have you put in to learning about DNA and investigating answers to these questions yourself?

Have you exhausted all means to investigate yourself and still have these questions, or have you decided it doesn't interest you to thoroughly investigate the same?

I've been a browsing reader on this subject for between 10 and 15 years. Have I "exhausted all means"? Of course not, I was just responding to a thread that interested me.

I didn't become a Christian because I thought abiogenesis was impossible, and I'm not going to abandon Christ if it turns out that it is. I could become a Christian theistic evolutionist, perhaps.

But really, doesn't faith in abiogenesis fly in the face of what we know about mathematics and biochemistry? There's a reason pro-abiogenesis people don't want to approach the subject with statistics: they know there are no approaches that produce favorable results. Anyway, there are none that I'm aware of.

I began this thread by responding to the OP's request for opinions on design criteria. I picked one, interdependent parts, and focused on one example of that, being DNA repair. But I could've picked any one of many more examples such as unwinding the DNA, scanning the DNA, rewinding the DNA, etc. All of these functions are examples of interdependency because the molecules that act on the DNA are built from the DNA itself.

And that doesn't look like an engineered micro-machine to you? Wow.

 

[ChetSinger]

What about the science that demonstrates that the most basic components of a cell wall can form in certain environmental conditions and retain their form?

Cool. Let me ask you a question. As cells grow and divide they must produce more cell wall material. Do you know if that's done using specifications transcribed from the DNA?

 

[ChetSinger]

-_- well, if the components of DNA weren't floating around together, they would have never linked up to form the DNA to begin with. It isn't like these components all assembled to form the DNA in the exact amount to form it, and that there wasn't an excess leftover.

Yes, I understand the mechanism of DNA repair quite well. I also understand that literally the first gene to ever develop could have been for DNA repair. Additionally, there are proteins and other such structures that do not require such maintenance. Regardless, DNA is primarily damaged (bypassing cell walls) thanks to the metabolism of our cells and how it deals with oxygen; something that didn't develop until long after life was well established.

That very same DNA? Says who? One strand could have coded for the repair mechanism, and instigated the repair of every other strand close enough to reap the benefits. We do have multiple chromosomes, you know, and they have different genes to each other.

Plus, the consequences of damage would have been far less significant for a free-floating DNA precursor that only needs to be able to replicate itself and nothing else.

Sure, speculate all you wish. But I'm not calling it scientific until it's demonstrated.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Cool. Let me ask you a question. As cells grow and divide they must produce more cell wall material. Do you know if that's done using specifications transcribed from the DNA?

Cell wall material consists of such simple compounds that they are free-floating in high concentrations. So much so that our body works to break down the excess (cholesterol and other fatty lipids make up the majority of cell walls, with some places of protein peeking through and some openings), not make more. That is, unless you eat an exceedingly low-fat diet, but if you were to eat that little fat, your body would suffer. So, no, cells don't really make it, and there are quite a few other chemicals we need to survive that we have to consume since our cells can't just make them. Thankfully, they are abundant chemicals, in most situations.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sure, speculate all you wish. But I'm not calling it scientific until it's demonstrated.

I can show you that genes for DNA repair are not present on every chromosome, nor is every sort of repair mechanism. Human DNA repair genes
chromosome 21 has no known DNA repair genes. neither does the y chromosome. And some have far more than others. I looked up what creatures have the fewest number of chromosomes, and that would be a single species of ant, the Jack jumper ant, in which the males have just 1. Otherwise, it seems that all other life on earth has at least two.

 

[ChetSinger]

Cell wall material consists of such simple compounds that they are free-floating in high concentrations. So much so that our body works to break down the excess (cholesterol and other fatty lipids make up the majority of cell walls, with some places of protein peeking through and some openings), not make more. That is, unless you eat an exceedingly low-fat diet, but if you were to eat that little fat, your body would suffer. So, no, cells don't really make it, and there are quite a few other chemicals we need to survive that we have to consume since our cells can't just make them. Thankfully, they are abundant chemicals, in most situations.

Nothing in cell membranes, even the embedded proteins, are constructed within the cell?

Fyi, this paper says that in plants, we're learning how cell walls are manufactured by the cell: Growth of the plant cell wall | Learn Science at Scitable.

 

[ChetSinger]

I can show you that genes for DNA repair are not present on every chromosome, nor is every sort of repair mechanism. Human DNA repair genes
chromosome 21 has no known DNA repair genes. neither does the y chromosome. And some have far more than others. I looked up what creatures have the fewest number of chromosomes, and that would be a single species of ant, the Jack jumper ant, in which the males have just 1. Otherwise, it seems that all other life on earth has at least two.

I hope you're not arguing that DNA repair mechanisms are optional. Are you?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Nothing in cell membranes, even the embedded proteins, are constructed within the cell?

Fyi, this paper says that in plants, we're learning how cell walls are manufactured by the cell: Growth of the plant cell wall | Learn Science at Scitable.

Plant cell walls contain cellulose, which animal cells do not. Thus, the process for cell formation in plants is different than in animals.

the embedded proteins are generated by the cell to an extent, yes, but the bulk of the cell wall is the phospholipids the cells do not have to produce.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I hope you're not arguing that DNA repair mechanisms are optional. Are you?

Optional for individual DNA strands, as long as one close by has them.

 

[ChetSinger]

Plant cell walls contain cellulose, which animal cells do not. Thus, the process for cell formation in plants is different than in animals.

OK.

the embedded proteins are generated by the cell to an extent, yes, but the bulk of the cell wall is the phospholipids the cells do not have to produce.

So a membrane is a mixture of locally-produced material and scrounged material. OK.

 

[Loudmouth]

I hope you're not arguing that DNA repair mechanisms are optional. Are you?

I hope you're not arguing that DNA repair mechanisms have been required for all life for the last 4 billion years, are you? If so, we need to see your evidence. If you can't show that DNA repair mechanisms were required for the first life, or that the first life even had DNA, then your argument is shot.

 

[ChetSinger]

I hope you're not arguing that DNA repair mechanisms have been required for all life for the last 4 billion years, are you? If so, we need to see your evidence. If you can't show that DNA repair mechanisms were required for the first life, or that the first life even had DNA, then your argument is shot.

I hope you're not asking me to provide details, or even speculate, on a history that I don't think existed. I don't think that's possible.

 

[Loudmouth]

I hope you're not asking me to provide details, or even speculate, on a history that I don't think existed.

I am asking you to provide evidence for the history you are claiming to accept. Where is your evidence that life has always had DNA, or has always needed DNA repair mechanisms?

 

[dad]

I am asking you to provide evidence for the history you are claiming to accept. Where is your evidence that life has always had DNA,...?

Bingo. Where is yours!? Where is your evidence it existed as we know it even when man first walked the earth?