Jump to content


Photo

Which Came First, The Chicken Or The Egg


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
22 replies to this topic

#21 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 July 2012 - 08:30 PM

In science the whole idea of "laws" or "natural laws" is very 19th Century. Newtons laws of motion have been superceded by Einsteins Theory of Relativity. You can confirm the truth of Einsteins theory over Newton's laws every time you use a GPS because the GPS clocks must be adjusted for relativity affects. (See http://www.metaresea...-relativity.asp for details)
Similary Boyle's Gas Laws have been replaced by the Kinetic Theory of Gases. Kinetic theory gives a more accurate result than the Gas Law. (See http://en.wikipedia....and_ideal_gases for details). Mendel's Laws on inheriitance have been replaced by Ronald Fishers Theory of Population Statistics.
In the 19th Century, matter and energy were thought to be distinct - resulting in the Law of Conservation of Mass. This "Law" was dramatically violated at Trinity, Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and every day now in hundreds of nuclear power plants around the world.
The famous 19th Century physicist Clerk Maxwell proposed his "demon" as a thought experiment as to how the Laws of Thermodynamics might be violated. Scientific interest in this idea persists and recent experiments have come close to violating the thermodynamic "laws". (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon for details).

The 20th Century physicist Fred Hoyle was an atheist and pro Darwin, despite being frequently quoted (usually out of context) by Creationist sites. His reputation and ability was established by his Theory of Stellar Nucleosynthesis - which successfully explained the abundance of elements in various kinds of stars. Hoyle was the author of the term "Big Bang". He supported an elegant alternative called the Steady State Theory. In order to account for the observed expansion of the Universe, Hoyle postulated the continual creation of matter in space. The fact that this might violate some 19th century "law" certainly didn't bother him. Big Bang has only triumphed over Steady State because of careful statistical analysis of the density of galaxies at varying cosmologiical distances.

The bottom line is that I don't think citing some 19th century "laws" which were only derived empirically can in any prove (or disprove) the existence of God. That is a question that I don't think science will ever resolve. All other issues - including the origin of the RNA transcription process and why it moves so incredibly slowly are open season.

As an atheist, I would question the divinity of Jesus Christ, but I admire his wisdom, exemplified in Mark 12 : 17


Yet to claim that there MUST be a naturalistic explanation when there is not the evidence for such is not logical. It is also arguing from the future as it is superseding the current evidence which defy the naturalist's claims, and then claiming that some kind of evidence for naturalism MUST be real. This can be observed each and every time Dawkins states, "science is working on it".... though it really should be 'naturalistic scientists are working on it', since science is not a thing, and stating as such is declaring "Science" is at odds with Religion.

Yes to claim "God did it" is also not logical, however as I stated the things I have based my claim on ARE indeed backed up my (actual) empirical experimentation (unlike evolution since it is merely assumed as an explanation, not experimentally demonstrated). Again I say that in order to defy my claim you would need to defy the laws / prerogatives of reality which I stated. Chirality is not a law I believe, yet it is a physical property inherent with a chemical compound (essentially it is asymmetry), yet the things evolution claims runs against this.... I ask you, how does one "disprove" asymmetry? The observed prerogatives of reality, ie- how the world works experimentally, I believe is a good foundation for any claim.

#22 Mountainboy19682

Mountainboy19682

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Brisbane, Queensland

Posted 18 July 2012 - 05:16 PM

Yes, but we don't admire yours. Now please go back to the OP and answer the questions listed there.

Well - going by one of your previous posts, you are putting me in the same category as Pope Benedict XVI and the Dalai Lama. I am flattered but I don't think I make that grade.
And why do you use "we" - is it the royal we or the divine we?

But on your questions you do have a point. I was so outraged by your characterisation "faster than a jet" that I spent little time researching the actual questions. A jet travels at 500 to 2000 miles per hour, while the transcription mechanism moves at 4 inches per year. Also the animated video is rather misleading in showing the DNA as more or less straight. In fact to fit into the nucleus of a cell, it is tightly coiled. Some have responded that the comparison should be scaled. So the real quote should be "faster than a microscopic jet going round in tiny circles". However I think the analogy misses the really important points about transcription. Its comparable to a data reading process in a computer - something everyone agrees was designed. As a data reading process, transcription is pathetically slow. To compensate for this deficiency, transcription is massively parallel. Some sources suggest 10,000 parallel transcription processes in a single cell. To me that is the really surprising statitic. Someone else claimed that the process is accurate. It isn't. To compensate for innaccuracies in the initial reading, transcription, at least in eukaryote cells, employs a complex error checking and correction mechanism, which causes transcription to halt and backtrack every 23 codons. Again, in the human designed data reading mechanisms we don't do this. The cell mechanism is a bodgie fix up - another clear sign of evolution at work rather than design.

But to come back to your questions:

1. Since it takes a helicase to open the double helix then what was the origin of the first helicase protein?
The first helicase protein evolved from a simpler protein molecule. When I googled "helicase evolution", I got 254,000 hits. Some of them are duplications and some are Creationist sites claiming that it can't be done. But many are real sites - often with highly technical papers. Almost everyone working in the field thinks that early life used RNA rather than DNA as the genetic material. RNA doesn't have a double helix. There are six major varieties of helicase, with innumerable minor variations. http://www.astrobio....2/test-tube-rna is a non technical site explaining the RNA world concept. When the transition to RNA occurred a carryover was a protein originally used in the RNA process that now functioned as a transcription enzyme and was the precursor to the helicases. Clearly there are a lot of people working on this issue. The technicalites are well beyond the competencies of a mining engineer like me.


2 Where does nature make the helicase outside of living organisms?
Answer: It doesn't. Helicase is a complex protein that is made by living organisms and has come about because of the evolution of those organisms. Early chemists divided into organic and inorganic chemists because it was thought that organic chemistry required a "vital force". The first chink came with the laboratory synthesis of urea. As physiology came to be understood increasingly in terms of physical mechanisms, vitalistic explanations for the functioning of the body were refuted one by one. The last holdout for vitalism was the kidney, but it fell into total disrepute after the elegant experiments of Homer Smith in the 1930s demonstrated clearly the filtration and secretory mechanisms of that organ.


3. How does the helicase know just where the start/stop codons are with virtual perfect functioning?

Answer: Again a google search for: "Recognition of Stop Codon", came up with 1.2 million hits. The first sentence of the abstract from the first hit ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14651631 ) says " Release factors RF1 and RF2 recognize stop codons present at the A-site of the ribosome and activate hydrolysis of peptidyl-tRNA to release the peptide chain. Interactions with RF3, a ribosome-dependent GTPase, then initiate a series of reactions that accelerate the dissociation of RF1 or RF2 and their recycling between ribosomes." Further down it continues "The interaction of the truncated factors with RF3 on the ribosome is defective: they fail to stimulate guanine nucleotide exchange on RF3, recycling is not stimulated by RF3, and nucleotide-free RF3 fails to stabilize the binding of RF1 or RF2 to the ribosome. However, the N-terminal domain seems not to be required for the expulsion of RF1 or RF2 by RF3:GTP."
This is way beyond me and you would have to ask someone in the field.

Clearly there are a lot of people who are working towards a close understanding of how this works.

4) Which came first the Chicken or the Egg?

Answer: The first eggs, as opposed to sperm, came about with the evolution of s@x - sometime in the late Pre-Cambrian. This could have happened with intermediates because some bacteria can exchange some of their DNA. Sperm and eggs represent two different reproductive strategies. Sperm are produced in great quantity and persist because a small perxcentage survive. Eggs are produced in small numbers but are endowed with more resources, making their survival more likely. A combining of the two strategies by the interchange of DNA is one possible origin of s@x. By this explanation, the answer to your chiildhood riddle is that both the chicken and the egg came from two parthenogenic organisms. Googling "Evolution of s@x" gets 96.4 million hits - some of them probably X rated - but definitely an embarassment of riches doubtless containing many other possible explanations.

Chickens are part of the Amniote clade - whose distinguishing feature is an egg with a shell and membranes suitable for survival on land - have a common ancestor with other tetrapods back in the Carboniferous. Casineria , a reptile like creature was an early amniote. So another answer to your riddle is that the egg came first, laid by the chickens ancestor.

#23 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 18 July 2012 - 06:14 PM

Mountainboy
But on your questions you do have a point. I was so outraged by your characterisation "faster than a jet" that I spent little time researching the actual questions.


You got angry over a minor point like that. Yet I told you to take it up with the evolutionists that made that video clip. Why didn't you?


Again, in the human designed data reading mechanisms we don't do this. The cell mechanism is a bodgie fix up - another clear sign of evolution at work rather than design.


Then do one better on God...if you can. Try it sometime. Do what Jack Shostak and/or Orel have not been able to accomplish in making even one successfully reproducing living cell. But then even if you could generate the impossible you would still be left with proving that nature could do it alone.

But to come back to your questions:

1. Since it takes a helicase to open the double helix then what was the origin of the first helicase protein?
The first helicase protein evolved from a simpler protein molecule. When I googled "helicase evolution", I got 254,000 hits. Some of them are duplications and some are Creationist sites claiming that it can't be done. But many are real sites - often with highly technical papers. Almost everyone working in the field thinks that early life used RNA rather than DNA as the genetic material. RNA doesn't have a double helix. There are six major varieties of helicase, with innumerable minor variations. http://www.astrobio....2/test-tube-rna is a non technical site explaining the RNA world concept. When the transition to RNA occurred a carryover was a protein originally used in the RNA process that now functioned as a transcription enzyme and was the precursor to the helicases. Clearly there are a lot of people working on this issue. The technicalites are well beyond the competencies of a mining engineer like me.


I take that as a 'no', as per my reference above concerning 'successfully reproducing' living organisms. Proof: your statement "Clearly there are a lot of people working on this issue". So if it were already accomplished they wouldn't still be working on it now would they? Advice: Don't hold your breath.

2 Where does nature make the helicase outside of living organisms?
Answer: It doesn't.


Correct.

3. How does the helicase know just where the start/stop codons are with virtual perfect functioning?

Answer: Again a google search for: "Recognition of Stop Codon", came up with 1.2 million hits. The first sentence of the abstract from the first hit ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14651631 ) says " Release factors RF1 and RF2 recognize stop codons present at the A-site of the ribosome and activate hydrolysis of peptidyl-tRNA to release the peptide chain. Interactions with RF3, a ribosome-dependent GTPase, then initiate a series of reactions that accelerate the dissociation of RF1 or RF2 and their recycling between ribosomes." Further down it continues "The interaction of the truncated factors with RF3 on the ribosome is defective: they fail to stimulate guanine nucleotide exchange on RF3, recycling is not stimulated by RF3, and nucleotide-free RF3 fails to stabilize the binding of RF1 or RF2 to the ribosome. However, the N-terminal domain seems not to be required for the expulsion of RF1 or RF2 by RF3:GTP."
This is way beyond me and you would have to ask someone in the field.



Yet they can't give any better answer than you do. Added to the problem of figuring out how the helicase 'knows' where and when to begin at the right stop/start codons is the self-repairing mechanisms it contains. Evolution can't explain that either.

4) Which came first the Chicken or the Egg?

Answer: The first eggs, as opposed to sperm, came about with the evolution of s@x - sometime in the late Pre-Cambrian. This could have happened with intermediates because some bacteria can exchange some of their DNA. Sperm and eggs represent two different reproductive strategies. Sperm are produced in great quantity and persist because a small perxcentage survive. Eggs are produced in small numbers but are endowed with more resources, making their survival more likely. A combining of the two strategies by the interchange of DNA is one possible origin of s@x. By this explanation, the answer to your chiildhood riddle is that both the chicken and the egg came from two parthenogenic organisms. Googling "Evolution of s@x" gets 96.4 million hits - some of them probably X rated - but definitely an embarassment of riches doubtless containing many other possible explanations.

Chickens are part of the Amniote clade - whose distinguishing feature is an egg with a shell and membranes suitable for survival on land - have a common ancestor with other tetrapods back in the Carboniferous. Casineria , a reptile like creature was an early amniote. So another answer to your riddle is that the egg came first, laid by the chickens ancestor.


And you really think that any creationist on this website is going to have any respect for an answer like that? You would have done better to not answer at all. But I learned long ago that evolutionists are incapable of being embarrassed, least of all by themselves despite the incredibly stupid answers they give us about origins.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users