Why evolution doesn't work.

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Rising Tree

Incorrect.  The principle of disorder is a fundamental rule of our lives.  Anything left unattended falls apart.

It snowed yesterday where I live. If "anything left unattended falls apart", then how did those snowflakes form?

 

[edgeo]

Originally posted by Rising Tree
Working with a sample size of one is not good science.

Yes, let's ignore those samples for which there is only one representative.  Besides, I believe that is not what Lucaspa meant.  Rather, it is possible to get this information from a single sample...

First of all, the evolutionists have lied more times that we can shake a stick at. 

Irrelevant.  Or do you want to get into an argument of the relative integrity of one side versus the other.  If so, I suggest we begin by looking at Kent Hovind...

Second of all, they're the ones who get billions of dollars for research, not creationists, so it only makes sense that our camp is going to mess up from time to time. 

From 'time to time!'   LOL!

... the part about the part-way transitional fossils, and the point is worth repeating.  What this article is attempting to do is a mistake that paleontologists commonly make.  They assume if that two species are very similar, one must have evolved from the other.  Similarity in no way establishes a chain of evolution unless the fossil record visibly shows this chain.

(emphasis added)

Did it ever occur to you that someone might have thought of this previously? 

I trust science, not politics.  Evolution is politics. 

Not really.  The debate is politics, but evolution itself is based in science.   In fact, in the world of science there is virtually no disagreement that evolution is the best theory available at this time.  If you have something better, we'd be glad to discuss it.

 

[Risen Tree]

It snowed yesterday where I live. If "anything left unattended falls apart", then how did those snowflakes form?

(1) Snowflakes are nowhere nearly as complicated as say, hemoglobin or DNA.

(2) Isn't the snowflake formation process spontaneous under the right conditions?

(3) Won't the flakes eventually melt?

Yes, let's ignore those samples for which there is only one representative.  Besides, I believe that is not what Lucaspa meant.  Rather, it is possible to get this information from a single sample...

Really?  In most fields of study, the usual minimum sample size is thirty.  How come paleontology gets an exception?  And don't counter with the fact that there aren't that many fossils on record; many times, studies don't have a lot of data to work with, but the n>=30 rule still has to hold.

Irrelevant.  Or do you want to get into an argument of the relative integrity of one side versus the other.  If so, I suggest we begin by looking at Kent Hovind...

I have a book that lists scores of these scenarios...if I could only find it....

Did it ever occur to you that someone might have thought of this previously?

Right, and you know what?  The missing chains that the evolutionists are looking for still do not exist. The existence of one link in no way implies that the chain requiring millions of links exists.  It does not rule out the possibility that the link was thrown or somehow else placed there.

How close does 4.9, 4.99, 4.999, 4.999....have to be to 5 to exactly equal 5?

Not really.  The debate is politics, but evolution itself is based in science.  In fact, in the world of science there is virtually no disagreement that evolution is the best theory available at this time.  If you have something better, we'd be glad to discuss it.

Say what?  The debate is what is scientific; the whole basis of evolution is on the assumption that time-plus-chance explains the origin of life.  Besides, it's safe to say that you've missed a lot of what I said earlier.  Believe it or not, some silenced voices in the scientific community are crying foul as the fallacy of the theory of evolution.  I have personally spoken to three such people; all three of them ultimately disowned evolution on scientific, not theological grounds.  Although it may be fun to do so, this subject doesn't take a Ph.D. to understand.  Evolution preaches time-plus-chance; creation preaches Intelligent Design.  Which makes more sense for ANY system of complexity that we know of--it randomly came into being, or somebody poured a lot of time and effort into getting it right?  You decide which paradigm makes more sense.  But as for me, I'm going with the intelligent design theory.

And if your curious as to my theory of the origin of life, refer to the first post in this thread.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Rising Tree
Attempting to prove that my brother is my sibling is one thing.

Attempting to prove that a random Joe is my 15th cousin is a different story.

And one phylogenetics is still able to tackle.

I'm really growing tired of seeing this. Just because the scientific community accepts a theory does not automatically make it true.

Please pay attention. You have attempted to assert what macroevolution is. Macroevolution is a scientific term. Thus to prove that you are using it correctly, you must cite scientific literature. It is impossible for you to claim that the scientific community could be wrong about what macroevolution is, since it is their idea. Now you have claimed that macroevolution only occurs after a mutational threshold is reached. Please provide a single biological source that describes macroevolution that way. Perhaps, if you do the search you will learn what macroevolution actually is along the way.l

Very well, it looks like we have to redefine the word "macroevolution."

Why must macroevolution be redefined, because you disagree with it. What makes your opinion better then that of the scientific community?

Yet I still see zero evidence from the mosquito scenario that life as we know it, which would have required the evolution of new genes, evolved.

The mosquito scenario never pretends to show this, which you would know if you bothered to read the paper. It does show that speciation and macroevolution does happen, which you have claimed was impossible. Nothing more nothing less.

That's an assumption that they occur as often as they do. Again I cite the Principle of Disorder (NOT NOT NOT the 2nd Law).

What assumption? No where in my statement did I mention a mutation rate. All I said is that it is greater than zero. Even you can’t disagree with it. Now what mechanism limits the number of mutations that can accumulate as a lineage ages? The only way you can claim that your view of macroevolution doesn’t happen is to provide one. There is no such thing as the principle of disorder. Please find a peer-reviewed scientific (chemisty, biology, physics, etc.) source or respected college textbook that states otherwise and applies it to molecular genetics. You can complain all you what that I am requiring proof from science of your statements. This is the science forum after all we are discussing science, what do you expect?

That's right, you have faith that the experts are correct. Need I get started on the number of times in history that the experts were dead wrong?

Interesting argument considering that every time science has conflicted superstition, whether biblically based or not, science has won. The world is not flat. The world is not at the center of the universe. Lighting is not caused by gods. Disease is not caused by demons. American Indians are not the descendents of Jews. The earth is not 6000 years old. Creatures were not created separately. Need I go on?

Working with a sample size of one is not good science.

It depends on what you are attempting to show. If you are describing the features of a fossil you only need that fossil. Why do you keep harping on this? There are seven specimens of Archy and none of them have overturned the original interpretations. Please look at the following sequence of fossils and tell me which ones disprove the other ones?

First of all, the evolutionists have lied more times that we can shake a stick at.

Such rhetoric might work in church, but your ad hominem lies can not replace data in a real scientific discussion.

Second of all, they're the ones who get billions of dollars for research, not creationists, so it only makes sense that our camp is going to mess up from time to time.

From time to time? Find me a single piece of evidence of creation and against evolution that has stood up under close scrutiny. I have addressed every “evolutionist lie” you have brought up, yet you have ignored the long list of creationist falsehoods I provide in my first post. Why is that?

Similarity in no way establishes a chain of evolution unless the fossil record visibly shows this chain.

Now if you would take the time to read the paleontological literature you will find well recorded chains. In fact, the section you quote doesn’t say that Archy is the only transitional fossil between dinosaurs and bird. It just says that it is the best. Where do you get that “best” is equivalent to “only?”

Beliefs such as (1) missing links will be found

Transitional fossils are well known, as we have demonstrated to you. However, given your indignation at studying the state of paleontological data and research, it is no surprise that you make this mistake.

(2) the Principle of Disorder can be overcome, etc.?

What principle of disorder? Before you can insist that it must be overcome, you must show that it exists. References to scientific literature are greatly appreciated.

I trust science, not politics. Evolution is politics.

Nice rhetoric, but this is neither a pulpit nor a podium, so data is required here.

BTW, I would be most surprised if any high-level scientific journal in America mentioned a pro-creation story, simply because of the overwhelming bias against creationism in the scientific community.

Before you can complain that the scientific community is biased against pro-creation works, you must provide evidence that papers have been rejected. From McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982):

Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was "close-minded" on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought.

You’d think that creationists would have changed their tune in the last 20 years, but that would require some form of error correction.

 

[Orihalcon]

Originally posted by Rising Tree
It snowed yesterday where I live. If "anything left unattended falls apart", then how did those snowflakes form?

(1) Snowflakes are nowhere nearly as complicated as say, hemoglobin or DNA.

(2) Isn't the snowflake formation process spontaneous under the right conditions?

(3) Won't the flakes eventually melt?

1.  so it only applies if it furthers your own argument.
2.  yes.  and did you say making such a organized structure, like the hexagonal pattern of a snowflake, is impossible to happen naturally?
3.  only if it gets warm enough.

i'd like to see that >30 rule, but i'll just take your word on it for now...

Say what?  The debate is what is scientific; the whole basis of evolution is on the assumption that time-plus-chance explains the origin of life.  Besides, it's safe to say that you've missed a lot of what I said earlier.  Believe it or not, some silenced voices in the scientific community are crying foul as the fallacy of the theory of evolution.  I have personally spoken to three such people; all three of them ultimately disowned evolution on scientific, not theological grounds.  Although it may be fun to do so, this subject doesn't take a Ph.D. to understand.  Evolution preaches time-plus-chance; creation preaches Intelligent Design.  Which makes more sense for ANY system of complexity that we know of--it randomly came into being, or somebody poured a lot of time and effort into getting it right?  You decide which paradigm makes more sense.  But as for me, I'm going with the intelligent design theory.

it's no longer an assumption, because of the immense amount of research put into it.  if the people who 'prove' evolution is wrong, i'd like to see their arguments.  it is very likely thier arguments have been disproven already.  given a 1-in-1 billion nucleotide error per DNA replication, breeding rates anywhere between 20 minutes to a year, 3 billion years, and a nice filtering process called natural selection... i think it's more likely that happened than a conscious intelligent designer being able to design, much less create all the complex biological systems and make them work.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Rising Tree
(1) Snowflakes are nowhere nearly as complicated as say, hemoglobin or DNA.

Irrelevant. Your statement was "anything left unattended falls apart". Snowflakes refute that. No human or Divine intervention required, either.

(2) Isn't the snowflake formation process spontaneous under the right conditions?

As you say, there are conditions happening causing snowflake formation. More specifically, there is heat/energy transfer taking place which causes water vapor to condense and crystalize. Because of that, I would not use the term "spontaneous" (if snowflakes suddenly appeared during a heatwave in the summer, that would be more akin to "spontaneous").

(3) Won't the flakes eventually melt?

Yes, they will. Then the melted snow (water) will evaporate. Then condense, solidify, and form snowflakes all over again (at least, where I live this happens a lot in the winter).

The fact this occurs, automatically refutes your (mis)understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (aka "anything left unattended falls apart").

However, snowflake formation is in no way a violation of 2LoT.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused.

 

[chickenman]

Do you realize that I only share 2^-(15+1) = 0.00153% of my DNA with my 15th cousin, assuming no inbreeding along the way?

so you mean you are in fact more closely related to a chimpanzee, to which you share at least 97 percent of your DNA, than to your 15th cousin?

or is it that your calculation is way off?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Rising Tree
In most fields of study, the usual minimum sample size is thirty. How come paleontology gets an exception? And don't counter with the fact that there aren't that many fossils on record; many times, studies don't have a lot of data to work with, but the n>=30 rule still has to hold.

That rule only holds if you are performing statistical tests on your data. When describing what a fossil looks like, you only need that fossil. Now what statistical test were used to find that Archy has both avian and reptilian features. Exactly what we would expect from a transitional fossil.

Right, and you know what? The missing chains that the evolutionists are looking for still do not exist.

Proloquium ex ignoratia.

The existence of one link in no way implies that the chain requiring millions of links exists. It does not rule out the possibility that the link was thrown or somehow else placed there.

But you are ignoring all the other data that leads scientists to conclude that modern birds are descendents of dinosaurs.

1. Morphological similarities.
2. Transitional fossils.
3. Genetic evidence.

New data from emerging fields have done nothing but strengthen the view of vertebrate paleontologists that birds are descended from dinosaurs.

Say what? The debate is what is scientific; the whole basis of evolution is on the assumption that time-plus-chance explains the origin of life.

Since when? Evolution does not nor never has pretended to explain the origin of life. The fact that you insist that it does shows that you really have no clue what the debate is after all.

Believe it or not, some silenced voices in the scientific community are crying foul as the fallacy of the theory of evolution. I have personally spoken to three such people; all three of them ultimately disowned evolution on scientific, not theological grounds.

Really now? Please provide evidence of this. Every creationist I have ever seen is one for strictly theological reasons. Can you find a single person who doubts the scientific validity of biological evolution who does not hold deeply theological or political beliefs?

Although it may be fun to do so, this subject doesn't take a Ph.D. to understand.

No it doesn’t, but if you want to challenge biology you should at least be a published, research scientist offering scientific data up to the scrutinity of of the scientific community. Rhetoric does not work.

Evolution preaches time-plus-chance;

No it does not. Find me a single biological source that refers to evolution as “time-plus-chance.” (Remember that thing I said about using scientific terminology correctly?)

creation preaches Intelligent Design. Which makes more sense for ANY system of complexity that we know of--it randomly came into being, or somebody poured a lot of time and effort into getting it right?

But you never considered evolution there. Natural selection is a design process, and it produces exactly what we see in nature: jury-ridged design. No sentient designed would make such mistakes.

You decide which paradigm makes more sense. But as for me, I'm going with the intelligent design theory.

Since when? Every thing you have provided us is form “biblical creationism,” not “intelligent design.” You are aware of the difference aren’t you?

 

[edgeo]

Originally posted by Rising Tree
Yes, let's ignore those samples for which there is only one representative.  Besides, I believe that is not what Lucaspa meant.  Rather, it is possible to get this information from a single sample...

Really?  In most fields of study, the usual minimum sample size is thirty.  How come paleontology gets an exception?  And don't counter with the fact that there aren't that many fossils on record; many times, studies don't have a lot of data to work with, but the n>=30 rule still has to hold.

Not sure what you are saying.  Do you expect that if only one fossil is available that it should be ignored until 29 more show up?

Irrelevant.  Or do you want to get into an argument of the relative integrity of one side versus the other.  If so, I suggest we begin by looking at Kent Hovind...

I have a book that lists scores of these scenarios...if I could only find it....

Only scores?  Sorry, but Kent can counter that all by himself.  Actually, this line of argument is fruitless as far as I'm concerned.  Why should hoaxers represent the rest of one side?  However, if you insist, please proceed.

Did it ever occur to you that someone might have thought of this previously?

Right, and you know what?  The missing chains that the evolutionists are looking for still do not exist. The existence of one link in no way implies that the chain requiring millions of links exists.  It does not rule out the possibility that the link was thrown or somehow else placed there.

And if only one link were missing, I'm sure you would disqualifiy the rest as well.  Sorry, but the whole point is that we have to explain what IS here, not just what is missing (according to you).  Evolution does that.

Not really.  The debate is politics, but evolution itself is based in science.  In fact, in the world of science there is virtually no disagreement that evolution is the best theory available at this time.  If you have something better, we'd be glad to discuss it.

Say what?  The debate is what is scientific; the whole basis of evolution is on the assumption that time-plus-chance explains the origin of life. 

Are you sure you got the details right here? 

Besides, it's safe to say that you've missed a lot of what I said earlier.  Believe it or not, some silenced voices in the scientific community are crying foul as the fallacy of the theory of evolution. 

Not that many, really, compared to those who believe the opposite.  Besides some are not complaining about evolution but simply question the mechanisms of evolution.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Besides, it's safe to say that you've missed a lot of what I said earlier. Believe it or not, some silenced voices in the scientific community are crying foul as the fallacy of the theory of evolution.

"Silenced voices?" Hardly. It is generally their choice to sell books directly to the public (where they make big$$ sometimes) rather than submit their research to a peer review process where it can be evaluated prior to publication and where, after publication, the scientific community has it at their collective fingertips.

If you are claiming that there are voices "silenced" by the scientific community, perhaps you can provide some examples. Lambslove claimed to have witnessed this herself, but could not provide an example. Another member here (I forget their moniker) made a similar claim, and also could not produce any examples. I expect I will be batting three for three after asking you for an example -- unless I misunderstood what you meant by "silenced voices..."

 

[Risen Tree]

I wish I had time to explain, but this is probably going to be my last post in this thread. FYI, this is NOT a concession speech; I need to get back to real life, and I'm not going to have the time to stick with this fast-moving debate. Oh well. Interesting points from all.

 

[ChaseNelson]

I'll be around forky

-Chaser

 

[ChaseNelson]

All,

I've rarely posted on this forum before, but my friend Rising Tree told me that he'd started a thread that I may be interested in. I'm very interested in biochemistry, and I believe it poses a few problems to the origin of life scenario. I posted this in another forum before, and the discussion following was not a very scientific one, but rather emotional. The problems I address focus mainly on chemical evolution.

Firstly, there is the issue of chirality. Amino acids come in L- and D-forms (left and right handed, respectively) which occur "in nature with roughly equal frequency [Dembski and Kushiner, eds., 2001, p. 109]." This poses a considerable difficulty, because "Only L-amino acids are commonly found in most organisms [Purves et al. 2001, p. 32]" except in a few cases, such as the "oligopeptides of cell walls [Huber and Wachtershauser 1998]." It is significant to note that "the amino acid products of (abiotic) laboratory syntheses are usually a 50:50 mixture of D and L (a racemic mixture) [Bernstein et al. 2002]."

Proteins have a very specific structure that is dependent upon its backbone--the amino acid sequence. About half of the sites along the chain are called active sites, and are quite critical--there are fatal consequences if something is changed [Moreland, ed., 1994, p. 179]. This is because of the protein's primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structure--primary being the backbone. Once a protein is assembled, it folds into a very specific shape (one biology textbook shows that, for a protein made of 100 amino acids using the 20 found in living proteins, 20^100 different proteins are possible [Purves et al. 2001, p. 38]). This shape is determined by such factors as delta-charges (very weak charges in polar molecules), R-groups that are hydrophobic (they don't like water, so they all get together to squeeze it out), R-groups of different charge, etc. The protein's specific structure is dependent upon the amino acid sequence. A protein's function is completely dependent on its shape (since it binds to other things with an exactly complementary shape to its own).

Now, since its shape is so important, no D-amino acids can be present, or its function will be destroyed. However, as quoted above, experiments produce a racemic mixture of amino acids--that is, a mixture with an equal amount of each handedness.

Many scientists have tried to solve this problem [e.g., Berstein et al. 2002; Rikken and Raupach 2000; Huber and Wachtershauser 1998], but none of the scenarios are very convincing [Cohen 1995]. For example, it is said that circularly polarized UV light will destroy one handedness quicker than the other. However, both forms are destroyed, and by the time the mixture is 100% one-handed, there is a very small amount of amino acids left at all. This idea, set forth by Rikken and Raupach [2000], also makes a number of asusmptions: for example, in their model, incoming light must be parallel with magnetic flux lines--something I don't presume is very likely to happen! Additionally, the magnetic field they used was 15 T. This is outrageous! Even sunspots have a strength of only about 4 T! Other ideas have similar problems.

Once this problem is overcome, there's the problem of getting the amino acids to polymerize (come together) and stay that way. Dr. Michael J. Behe, a biochemist (author of Darwin's Black Box), stated the following:

The major problem in hooking amino acids together is that, chemically, it involves the removal of a molecule of water for each amino acid joined to the growing protein chain. Conversely, the presence of water strongly inhibits amino acids from forming proteins. Because water is so abundant on the earth, and because amino acids dissolve readily in water, origin-of-life researchers have been forced to propose unusual scenarios to get around the water problem [Behe 1996, pp. 169-170].

Higher temperatures accelerate this breakdown of polypeptides. However, as noted by Shapiro [1999, p. 4399] while discussing cytosine and chemical evolution, "It has been argued that a cold or frozen condition for early Earth would be more favorable for the origin of life, as it would slow the decomposition rate of cytosine and the other bases. It is not obvious that any advantage would be gained by this, however, as the rate of synthetic [putting together] reactions would also be slowed on a frozen Earth." So it doesn't much help if the temperature is lowered.

This is a very sketchy overview of the problems encountered in origin-of-life research. The many roadblocks have driven some scientists to conclude that something other than proteins started life out: for example, the 'RNA World Hypothesis', which hold that RNA was the first thing to 'emerge'. This doesn't seem very promising to me either. Gerald F. Joyce [Joyce 2002, p. 215], an authority on this subject, said that "If the building blocks of RNA were available in the prebiotic environment, if these combined to form polynucleotides, and if some of the polynucleotides began to self-replicate, then the RNA world may have emerged as the first form of life on Earth. But based on current knowledge of prebiotic chemistry, this is unlikely to have been the case [emphasis mine]." Many problems with the stability of the RNA bases have been examined, and pose a great problem to the RNA World [Shapiro 1999; Levy and Miller 1998; Larralde et al. 1995]. A naturalistic origin of life simply doesn't seem too promising at the time being.

References

Behe, Michael J., Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York, NY: Touchstone, 1996).

Bernstein, Max P., et al., "Racemic Amino Acids from the Ultraviolet Photolysis of Interstellar Ice Analogues," Nature 416(6879):401-403, 28 March 2002.

Cohen, Jon, "Getting All Turned Around Over the Origins of Life on Earth," Science 267(5202):1265-1266, 3 March 1995.

Dembski, William A., and James M. Kushiner, editors, Signs of Intelligence (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2001).

Huber, Claudia, and Gunter Wachtershauser, "Peptides by Activation of Amino Acids with CO on (Ni,Fe)S Surfaces: Implications for the Origin of Life," Science 281(5377):670-672, 31 July 1998.

Joyce, Gerald F., "The Antiquity of RNA-Based Evolution," Nature 418(6894):214-221, 11 July 2002.

Larralde, Rosa, et al., "Rates of Decomposition of Ribose and Other Sugars: Implications for Chemical Evolution," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 92(18):8158-8160, 29 August 1995.

Levy, Matthew, and Stanley L. Miller, "The Stability of the RNA Bases: Implications for the Origin of Life," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95(14):7933-7938, 7 July 1998.

Moreland, J.P., editor, The Creation Hypothesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVaristy Press, 1994).

Purves, William, K., et al., Life: The Science of Biology (Sinauer Associates, Inc., and W.H. Freeman and Company, 2001).

Rikken, G.L.J.A., and E. Raupach, "Enantioselective Magnetochiral Photochemistry," Nature 405(6789):932-935, 22 June 2000.

Shapiro, Robert, "Prebiotic Cytosine Synthesis: A Critical Analysis and Implications for the Origin of Life," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96(8):4396-4401, 13 April 1999.

 

[ChaseNelson]

All,

I will be at my dad's house this weekend, so I will not have a chance to reply until late Sunday or Monday. Even then school starts, so I may be slow to respond. Sorry!

-Chaser

 

[Jerry Smith]

Welcome back, Chase.

I don't discuss much on origin of life because 1) I am not very familiar with the details of various hypotheses and 2) because right now even the most promising avenues of research are very hypothetical. I would like to know a little bit more. Since you obviously have access to a well-stocked reference library, maybe you can help me hold up my end of this "debate"...

For instance:

Firstly, there is the issue of chirality. Amino acids come in L- and D-forms (left and right handed, respectively) which occur "in nature with roughly equal frequency [Dembski and Kushiner, eds., 2001, p. 109]." This poses a considerable difficulty, because "Only L-amino acids are commonly found in most organisms [Purves et al. 2001, p. 32]" except in a few cases, such as the "oligopeptides of cell walls [Huber and Wachtershauser 1998]." It is significant to note that "the amino acid products of (abiotic) laboratory syntheses are usually a 50:50 mixture of D and L (a racemic mixture) [Bernstein et al. 2002]."

Proteins have a very specific structure that is dependent upon its backbone--the amino acid sequence. About half of the sites along the chain are called active sites, and are quite critical--there are fatal consequences if something is changed [Moreland, ed., 1994, p. 179]. This is because of the protein's primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structure--primary being the backbone. Once a protein is assembled, it folds into a very specific shape (one biology textbook shows that, for a protein made of 100 amino acids using the 20 found in living proteins, 20^100 different proteins are possible [Purves et al. 2001, p. 38]). This shape is determined by such factors as delta-charges (very weak charges in polar molecules), R-groups that are hydrophobic (they don't like water, so they all get together to squeeze it out), R-groups of different charge, etc. The protein's specific structure is dependent upon the amino acid sequence. A protein's function is completely dependent on its shape (since it binds to other things with an exactly complementary shape to its own).

Now, since its shape is so important, no D-amino acids can be present, or its function will be destroyed. However, as quoted above, experiments produce a racemic mixture of amino acids--that is, a mixture with an equal amount of each handedness.

My question, and maybe you can help answer it, is this: is it possibly a mechanism in the process of catalysis used by the first self-replicators that is responsible for the selection of L-chiral amino acids in organics of biological origin? If there was bias for L-chiral acids in the catalytic mechanism of the first replicator(s), then that would provide an explanation for the fact that only left-handed amino acids were picked up from a random pool in those first proteins. It would also account for the observation that all proteins that living things use must be lefthanded, since evolution shows that they are all derived from the first living things. Do you know of any research that deals with this possibility?

Going on, you said:

The many roadblocks have driven some scientists to conclude that something other than proteins started life out: for example, the 'RNA World Hypothesis', which hold that RNA was the first thing to 'emerge'. This doesn't seem very promising to me either. Gerald F. Joyce [Joyce 2002, p. 215], an authority on this subject, said that "If the building blocks of RNA were available in the prebiotic environment, if these combined to form polynucleotides, and if some of the polynucleotides began to self-replicate, then the RNA world may have emerged as the first form of life on Earth. But based on current knowledge of prebiotic chemistry, this is unlikely to have been the case [emphasis on "if's" added by Chase Nelson have been removed due to formatting of quote]."

In this recent thread lucaspa pointed out that Gerald Joyce has recently published a paper with this abstract:

All life that is known to exist on Earth today and all life for which there is evidence in the geological record seems to be of the same form — one based on DNA genomes and protein enzymes. Yet there are strong reasons to conclude that DNA- and protein-based life was preceded by a simpler life form based primarily on RNA. This earlier era is referred to as the 'RNA world', during which the genetic information resided in the sequence of RNA molecules and the phenotype derived from the catalytic properties of RNA.

It seems from this that RNA is not proposed to be the first self-replicator, but merely a step that preceded modern DNA. Could you elaborate? You mention that there are problems with RNA world. Can you tell us whether those problems appear to be critical and insoluble, or whether they are the sort of problems that scientists work out all the time?

I'm hoping lucaspa will jump in on this thread. He seems to be imminently familiar with the state of current abiogenesis research, and I believe that he strongly disagrees, based on the work of Fox and others, that "A naturalistic origin of life simply doesn't seem too promising at the time being."

 

[RufusAtticus]

Hi Chase,

This thread is about "why evolution doesn't work." Your post has nothing to do with this. It concerns the origin of life, not the origin of the diversity of life. The former is abiogenesis the latter is evolution. If you are going to take over for Rising Tree, I'd hope you'd address the numerious topics that he left hanging.

I don't know why you included abiotic protein synethesis in your post, since current hypotheses about the origin of life do not consider proteins as the first step. You only include RNA World, which is now considered to have preceded the Protein-DNA world, as almost an after thought to the mainsection of your post. If you really what to address abiogenesis, you should focus your effort there. Concentrating on proteins is a major flaw and/or deception in creationist/idist writers.

Now I suggest that you read that Joyce 2002 paper agian, since you took his statement out of context. He does not say that the RNA World hypothesis is wrong but rather that it was probably preceeded by a pre-RNA world. (Maybe TNA, PNA, or something else.) Here is his conclusion,

Outlook

The reign of the RNA world on Earth probably began no more than about 4.2 billion years ago and ended no less than about 3.6 billion years ago. It may have occupied only a small portion of that interval, with the pre-RNA world having come before. Insight into the origin and operation of the RNA world is largely inferential, based on the known chemical and biochemical properties of RNA. In the best of circumstances those inferences are supported by examining the role of RNA in contemporary biology. Without that support one must be careful not to draw detailed conclusions regarding these historical events. Future studies will sharpen the picture of ancestral RNAbased life through combined efforts in prebiotic chemistry, in vitro evolution, biochemical analysis and molecular phylogenetics. It should be possible to formulate more precise boundary conditions regarding the environmental conditions of the early Earth and the types of chemical reactions that would have occurred under those conditions. Additional catalytic RNAs are likely to be found in biology and undoubtedly many more will be discovered through test-tube evolution. The construction of artificial RNA-based life from synthetic oligonucleotides is a distinct possibility, and there even is a chance that a remnant of the RNA world will be found lurking in some special contemporary microenvironment.

You concude your post with "A naturalistic origin of life simply doesn't seem too promising at the time being." This is an unsupported jump in your argument. All you have tried to show is an improbability that the first replicator was a protein or RNA. This is fundamentally different from showing that a "naturalistic origin" of life is improbable. Are you familiar with deus ex ignoratia?

I've been looking for a person to have a formal debate with me on the existance of immutable kinds. It'd take place in the formal debates forum over on Internet Infidels. Assuming that you believe in "kinds," do you want to do it? Everyone else I have every challenged has fled from the offer. Will you?

 

[ChaseNelson]

Rufus and Jerry,

Thank you for providing an intelligent response to my points. I am going to re-read a couple of the articles I have (including a new article by Joyce published this December I photocopied). I will get back to you within a couple of days. School starts tomorrow, and exams are just next week, so I'm afraid I won't have an incredible amount of time.

Rufus, I don't know very much about baraminology, but a little. I will certainly not engage in a debate with you (yet, at least), because I haven't studied it hardly at all. Not to mention you're a population genetics grad student, and I'm a nobody...

Jerry, I cannot find lucaspa's quote on that thread, perhaps I'm just not looking hard enough. Could you provide the reference? If he's referring to the article entitled "A Ribozyme Composed of Only Two Different Nucleotides," that is not in the abstract (which is, as far as I know, Joyce's most recent article). For your question, "My question, and maybe you can help answer it, is this: is it possibly a mechanism in the process of catalysis used by the first self-replicators that is responsible for the selection of L-chiral amino acids in organics of biological origin?" I really have next to no literature on it here, unfortunately. I will certainly look into it for you. Bada makes a couple of doubtful comments about it, but I'm not sure what evidence backs it up.

Sorry for being so brief, talk to you soon.

Regards,
Chaser

 

[RufusAtticus]

Chase,

If you ever have any problems finding a paper, just email me and I'll see if I can get it in PDF format through my university. It would then be easy to email to you. Also, if you want to continue with the topic of you post, I suggest that a new thread is in order. Also if you have trouble understanding a paper, I'll be happy to work through it with you.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Chase,

lucaspa cited: Joyce, The antiquity of RNA-based evolution, Nature, 2002. Unfortunately, I could find nothing in his post that would indicate what issue to look in for this paper.

I'm suprised you don't have any source material that might answer my question. Judging by your first post on this thread, you have a veritable library at your fingertips, but I guess that's just the breaks.