Page 20 of 20

Re: Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implications?

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:05 pm
by ARWallace
Has anyone placed all of the components of DNA into a solution to see if DNA self forms? I thought there was a third molecule needed?
Well, complimentary single stranded DNA will anneal spontaneously (because double stranded DNA is more stable than single stranded). But DNA doesn't form polymers spontaneously in a solution of nucleotides - it requires an enzyme (DNA polymerase) and a source of energy (GTP).

Now, RNA will form short polymers in a solution of RNA nucleotides under the right conditions. And it is autocatalytic (i.e. it will self replicate). This is why RNA was believed to be the first molecule of heredity, but was later replaced by DNA which is more stable and capable of forming longer polymers. And it is likely no accident that RNA still has a role in the replication of heredible material.

Re: Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implications?

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:26 pm
by frankbaginski
ARWalace,

So if we had the right sugars, phosphates, and acids we would not get DNA. That makes sense because if these items did indeed do this it would make it difficult to use these same parts in a process with one desired end. I am aware of the role of the polymerase and GTP but did not know if the barrier without them could be overcome. Now with RNA, can it make a chain from nothing? If you had a solution of these parts do they chain together? Or are they limited to replicating an existing chain? Once a chain is formed does it fall into an energy well so it is not likely to disassemble? Is there any theory how an RNA molecule could make a DNA molecule? It seems to me to have too many parts required to happen by accident.

I mean someone could say that Buicks are made by accident if you allow that a factory came along naturally. I know this is a stretch, but at some point you have to describe all parts needed and show how each arrived through natural processes. I have read that some people are saying that early precursers may have been way different and since we don't have them anymore we may never know how this happen. I just see this as a cop out.

I know that some natural occuring elements and molecules can destroy an organic chain. Some are suggesting life forming on asteroids in clay to get around this issue. I guess once someone comes up with a theory we could model an ancient ocean and see how the forces of destruction way against the building machine. But without a model and theory it is just a thought.

It is my understanding that a virus requires the replicator of its host in order to duplicate. This means that the earliest forms had to be replicators. But replicators are not simple. I still don't know much about any of this but I know I need to in order to be effective in the circles I hang around in. So I hope to pick your brain for as long as you let me.

Re: Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implications?

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:28 am
by David Blacklock
>>I mean someone could say that Buicks are made by accident if you allow that a factory came along naturally<<

The idea of the spontaneous generation of a 747 - or the idea of how long it would take monkeys to write a certain Shakesperean play, does not take advantage of the processes that natural selection uses. If the monkeys start with 26 possibilities on the first letter of the play and don't start on the second letter until the correct first number is in place, the play gets created in record time. The randomness proceeds with something to build on, differently than if you had no progressive process.

With the first scenario, the buick's chances of being built are so slim, it could virtually never happen. With a progressive method (like natural selection), the possibility, in my eyes, changes to "likely" or even "probable."

You did allow that the factory came about naturally, so maybe I misread your post.

DB 8-}2

Re: Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implications?

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:45 am
by Canuckster1127
David Blacklock wrote:>>I mean someone could say that Buicks are made by accident if you allow that a factory came along naturally<<

The idea of the spontaneous generation of a 747 - or the idea of how long it would take monkeys to write a certain Shakesperean play, does not take advantage of the processes that natural selection uses. If the monkeys start with 26 possibilities on the first letter of the play and don't start on the second letter until the correct first number is in place, the play gets created in record time. The randomness proceeds with something to build on, differently than if you had no progressive process.

With the first scenario, the buick's chances of being built are so slim, it could virtually never happen. With a progressive method (like natural selection), the possibility, in my eyes, changes to "likely" or even "probable."

You did allow that the factory came about naturally, so maybe I misread your post.

DB 8-}2
It's true that you have progressive results, but then that puts into the play the whole idea as to whether something, say an amino acid construct of some 30 different components to form a complex biological machine can be demonstrated to have some conferred advantage, or at least no competative disadvantage for each and every step along the way in its ascendency from simple to complex, right?

Re: Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implications?

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:05 am
by ARWallace
So if we had the right sugars, phosphates, and acids we would not get DNA.
Well, not exactly. The nucleotides - A,C,T, and G - have been shown to form abiotically. But these would not self assemble long polymers of double stranded DNA.
I am aware of the role of the polymerase and GTP but did not know if the barrier without them could be overcome.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. DNA can be replicated with just polymerase and a source of nucleotides. That's basically what PCR is - a machine just cycles through temperatures, and DNA unwinds, primers anneal and polymerase copies - all ex vivo. Before our school bought a PCR machine, I used to have my students put the ingredients in a tube and move the tube from water bath to water bath, all at different temperatures, and DNA was copied. I'm not saying this is how things worked 3 bya, only that it is theoretically possible for DNA rep to occur outside a cell with the right conditions. That said, I am unaware of any models of abiosynthesis that suggests this is how things happened. Most suggest RNA evolved as the initial molecule of heredity, and DNA co opted RNA and its ability to produce proteins (such as polymerase) later in evolution.
Now with RNA, can it make a chain from nothing? If you had a solution of these parts do they chain together? Or are they limited to replicating an existing chain?
Yes, RNA will self assemble into polymers, and these polymers are capable of acting as enzymes (much like proteins) and can catalyze RNA synthesis. In fact, a Nobel prize was awarded for this discovery. Now, they are limited in how long they can be - and I don't know if chains link together. But the point is (from an evolutionary perspective) that heritable, self replicating material can form naturally -and this is all that is required for natural selection to act (selecting some RNAs with certain features that make them "better" than other RNAs).
Once a chain is formed does it fall into an energy well so it is not likely to disassemble?
Well, I don't know. But all that is required for evolution to act is that they remain stable long enough for selection to favor some variants over others. And perhaps one thing that is being selected is stability. (?)
Is there any theory how an RNA molecule could make a DNA molecule?
Well, there are 2 possibilities here; first that RNA acted as an enzyme (see the Nobel prize stuff) to catalyze the replication of DNA. The second, and more probable explanation is that RNA produced short proteins (this is, after all, what they do in cells) and some of those proteins acted as catalysts to produce DNA (much like polymerases do today). In other words, evolution may have favored an RNA that produced an enzyme that produced DNA (a more stable form of heritable material).
I know this is a stretch, but at some point you have to describe all parts needed and show how each arrived through natural processes.
Well, I am a bit reluctant to use anthropogenic examples because we're starting with a bias - that the structure was intelligently designed, for a purpose, with parts made by a designer. In the example you cite, the answer is yes - the parts have to come from a designer. But the answer from abiogenesis is "no" - the parts can and have been shown to arise from abiotic precursors without divine intervention. Experiments over the last 60 years have confirmed this. This doesn't mean that is how it all happened, only that it is possible that this is how it all happened.
I have read that some people are saying that early precursers may have been way different and since we don't have them anymore we may never know how this happen. I just see this as a cop out.
I would have to see the context in which this statement was made. For example, the original Miller-Urey experiment showed that organic molecules could arise from inorganic precursors. But that was 60 years ago - and critics have argued that their conditions may not have mirrored those conditions believed to exist on ancient Earth. And I think these are fair criticisms - later geologic evidence may have shown that life evolved in conditions with far less oxygen. Some critics believe the origins of life occurred in deep hydrothermal vents. Others that life was seeded from comets. Each of these models have been tested, and each enjoys varying degrees of support. But the bottom line is that it is difficult, if not impossible to exactly recreate the sequence of events leading to the evolution of life - events that occurred 3.5 billion years ago in conditions not known with absolute certainty and that did not leave traces in a fossil record. But this doesn't mean hypotheses can't be developed and tested refined as new evidence comes to light.
It is my understanding that a virus requires the replicator of its host in order to duplicate.
Hm. No. Not exactly. Depends on the virus; depends on the host. Minimally a virus just needs to enter a host to replicate. And they usually use energy and molecules from the host to do this. Some viruses pre-package their own replicator molecules (like HIV and reverse transcriptase).
This means that the earliest forms had to be replicators. But replicators are not simple.
Yes, and no. RNA is a replicator, and at only a handful of nucleotides long, it's pretty simple.
So I hope to pick your brain for as long as you let me.
Longer than I'd let you pick my nose...

Re: Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implications?

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:07 am
by frankbaginski
ARWalace,

From your post it seems that molecular biologist have come a long way. I think this is great. Since I know the universe is created and all in it, then having molecules that form organic structures is well within what I would expect. I have no preconceived notion that the mechanics don't exist for spontaneous life. I don't think it happened this way but the parts could and should by design have this ability. All of the molecular processes occur unguided as far as we know so having the molecules have this ability fits well. The ID people point to some systems in a species and say that the level of complexity and being irreducable don't allow for chance. I tend to agree with what I have seen but I have to allow for yet undiscovered processes.

Knowing about atoms and quantum mechanics (as little as I do) I think the building blocks of the universe were all built to allow life. Way too many things are balanced as if on the head of a pin for the atoms and molecules we have to exist. So for me the parts were designed from the beginning. Now I do not believe in a 14.5 billion year old universe. I go through all of this reasoning in another post. I think the ID people are looking for those areas where in their mind God did intervene and jump a natural barrier. I feel they are right but knowing that we are new to all this and will fill in many unknowns in the near future they may have placed their stake in the ground early.

Re: Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implications?

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:41 pm
by David Blacklock
To Canuckster:

Right!

Re: Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implications?

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:23 pm
by Himantolophus
Knowing about atoms and quantum mechanics (as little as I do) I think the building blocks of the universe were all built to allow life. Way too many things are balanced as if on the head of a pin for the atoms and molecules we have to exist. So for me the parts were designed from the beginning. Now I do not believe in a 14.5 billion year old universe. I go through all of this reasoning in another post. I think the ID people are looking for those areas where in their mind God did intervene and jump a natural barrier. I feel they are right but knowing that we are new to all this and will fill in many unknowns in the near future they may have placed their stake in the ground early.
well, if the Universe wasn't set up perfectly, and the Sun and Earth not in their respective places, then we humans wouldn't be around to argue about this. :esmile: It only looks designed since we EXIST! Out of the billions of worlds in this Universe, there should be at least one in the perfect spot! Do IDers believe this was the spot where God decided to put Earth? Why would God choose this galaxy and this location within it? Not really addressable questions but I thought I'd throw it out there

Re: Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implications?

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:42 am
by frankbaginski
Himantolophus ,

Actually to answer your question you just need to watch the DVD Privileged Planet. It goes into how special our place is in the universe and it almost seems we were placed here on purpose. We were.

After you finish up your studies you might want to do some work with physics. It just may open your eyes to a different set of realities. The entire universe is a digital simulation of a much larger reality. We are just now seeing crossover interaction at the particle and energy level.

Re: Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implication

Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:37 am
by Anonymiss
Jad wrote:Evolutionism (macro-evolution) should also be left out of the science lab as well though.
I disagree. I definitely think speciation ("macroevolution") is plausible.. Do most of you day-agers here flatout reject the theory of speciation, or are just skeptical? (asking because i've seen some antispeciationistic posts around here)

Re: Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implication

Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:50 pm
by Jad
Anonymiss wrote:
Jad wrote:Evolutionism (macro-evolution) should also be left out of the science lab as well though.
I disagree. I definitely think speciation ("macroevolution") is plausible.. Do most of you day-agers here flatout reject the theory of speciation, or are just skeptical? (asking because i've seen some antispeciationistic posts around here)
I can't find where you pulled that quote from Anonymiss but I'm thinking you've taken me out of context here. Speciation is plausible. ID even more plausible. Yet one remains and the other is left out. That was my point I think. Correct me if I am wrong.

Re: Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implication

Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:06 am
by Anonymiss
Jad wrote:
Anonymiss wrote:
Jad wrote:Evolutionism (macro-evolution) should also be left out of the science lab as well though.
I disagree. I definitely think speciation ("macroevolution") is plausible.. Do most of you day-agers here flatout reject the theory of speciation, or are just skeptical? (asking because i've seen some antispeciationistic posts around here)
I can't find where you pulled that quote from Anonymiss but I'm thinking you've taken me out of context here. Speciation is plausible. ID even more plausible. Yet one remains and the other is left out. That was my point I think. Correct me if I am wrong.
Sorry, here's you reply - what i quoted is in your final paragraph and in it you think the theory of speciation (AKA macroevolution) should be left out of the science lab - which i don't agree with.. To be honest, i think that both "Intelligent Design" and "macroevolution" (one species or possibly even a clade branching off into another) have occurred and that God has been in involved in both processes... I find it rather unlikely that every specie known (extent or fossil) was created independently from another(though it seems that that was the case of the human species).

If both are in fact true, this maybe the part of the reason there is so much disagreement between both sides...

Apologize if I misinterpreted anyone here or put words in your mouths.

Need sleep.. y(:| G/N

Re: Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implication

Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:02 am
by Jad
Yeh I think we are in agreement somewhat. I just find ID as an accumulative case a more robust argument than macro-evolution. Again if one is taught in the science lab then the should also. Or they can both stay out. I think I'm dreaming though at this point hehe.

I hope you slept well.

Re: Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implication

Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:20 pm
by Anonymiss
Jad wrote:Again if one is taught in the science lab then the should also. Or they can both stay out. I think I'm dreaming though at this point hehe.

I hope you slept well.
Agreed. Something I would not like to see being taught in schools, universities, etc. however, is the YEC theology. (no offense to Young Earthers)

My slumber was good, thanks.

God Bless

Re: Is ID non-scientific because it has relgious implication

Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:09 pm
by Jad
Anonymiss wrote:Something I would not like to see being taught in schools, universities, etc. however, is the YEC theology. (no offense to Young Earthers)
Yes although I was once an avid Young Earther and although these are my brothers in Christ, I am finding it harder and harder find good reasoning and good logic behind this theory. I am suspect we are dead smack in the middle of a big scientific change of view when it comes to the creation record in the Bible. I can imagine a similar teething experience back when we thought the world was flat and someone first suggested it was a globe. That the four corners found in the Bible was not to be taken in a wooden literal sense but metaphorically. Or when we thought the sun revolved around the earth and we were the centre of the universe (or something like that).

I don't know how many years it took before the majority of the population understood that the world was not flat and when we started snickering at those that did. Are we closer to that stage with YEC? I don't really know but I think first we should humble ourselves in light of God's glorious creation. I mean who knows, in another 400 years if we are still around there might be a majority of the population snickering at our ideas about billions of years and Darwinian Evolution. Or perhaps even sooner.