Jump to content


Photo

Dna Is Not The Only Information Required For Life


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

#1 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 17 March 2012 - 08:33 PM

Another issue, especially displayed among evolutionists (but creationists, including myself, are not immune), is a lack of understanding of the location of biological information. Most people tend to think DNA (the ‘genome’) is the storage place of information. While it is certainly the location of a tremendous amount of it, this gene-centered view ignores the information originally engineered into the first created organisms. The architecture of the cell, including the cell wall, nucleus, sub-cellular compartments and a myriad of molecular machines, did not originate from DNA, but was created separately and alongside DNA. Neither can exist without the other. Thus, a large, yet immeasurable, part of biological information resides in living organisms outside DNA.
http://creation.com/...new-information



Quite an interesting little fun fact, don't you agree?

#2 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 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 March 2012 - 09:38 PM

Nice find :) there is also the information that is needed to process the information of the DNA... a ribosome needs to "know" which amino acids correspond to which codon sequences etc... Hence the fact that the cell interprets the information of DNA requires it "knows" what the DNA is.... Or that is how it was programmed in the first place.

Programed is more logical, since no-one would claim that a single cell is sentient to "know" how to interpret its DNA code.
  • JayShel likes this

#3 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 March 2012 - 04:18 AM



Another issue, especially displayed among evolutionists (but creationists, including myself, are not immune), is a lack of understanding of the location of biological information. Most people tend to think DNA (the ‘genome’) is the storage place of information. While it is certainly the location of a tremendous amount of it, this gene-centered view ignores the information originally engineered into the first created organisms. The architecture of the cell, including the cell wall, nucleus, sub-cellular compartments and a myriad of molecular machines, did not originate from DNA, but was created separately and alongside DNA. Neither can exist without the other. Thus, a large, yet immeasurable, part of biological information resides in living organisms outside DNA.
http://creation.com/...new-information



Quite an interesting little fun fact, don't you agree?



So basically, what this is really saying is that the cell (in correlation with DNA) is irreducibly complex! Without the Cell, the DNA can do nothing, and without DNA the Cell has absolutely no mechanism for sending information to the rest of the body…

#4 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 March 2012 - 06:26 AM

So basically, what this is really saying is that the cell (in correlation with DNA) is irreducibly complex! Without the Cell, the DNA can do nothing, and without DNA the Cell has absolutely no mechanism for sending information to the rest of the body…


I guess because it's morning and my brain is not quite woke up yet. I did not understand the OP. But I'm glad you put it into easier to understand terms. Thanks.

#5 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 March 2012 - 05:45 PM



So basically, what this is really saying is that the cell (in correlation with DNA) is irreducibly complex! Without the Cell, the DNA can do nothing, and without DNA the Cell has absolutely no mechanism for sending information to the rest of the body…



I guess because it's morning and my brain is not quite woke up yet. I did not understand the OP. But I'm glad you put it into easier to understand terms. Thanks.



I think you know by now Ike, that I like to break things down to their simplest terms, brush away the chaff, then take a second look. ;) It helps in dealing with convoluted terms, but it also helps in dealing with tough to understand (complex) phenomena like DNA and Cells as well.

#6 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:13 AM

A popular hypothesis is that the first “protocell” would have contained RNA, not DNA. RNA can function as both a replication template and an enzyme, which is why it’s a better candidate than DNA for early life. Thus DNA is not necessary for cellular life, nor are organelles or a nucleus... as demonstrated by modern-day bacteria.

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 23 March 2012 - 12:46 PM

A popular hypothesis is that the first “protocell” would have contained RNA, not DNA. RNA can function as both a replication template and an enzyme, which is why it’s a better candidate than DNA for early life. Thus DNA is not necessary for cellular life, nor are organelles or a nucleus... as demonstrated by modern-day bacteria.


Very true, yet like DNA, some RNA undergo complex processes to prep it for its function.Thus the chicken and the egg problem is apparent for RNA world as it is for DNA.

Further, there would need to be a ribosome that can read RNA, I do not think this has been discovered

#8 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 23 March 2012 - 02:19 PM

Hi Gilbo,

Very true, yet like DNA, some RNA undergo complex processes to prep it for its function.Thus the chicken and the egg problem is apparent for RNA world as it is for DNA.

Further, there would need to be a ribosome that can read RNA, I do not think this has been discovered


Not sure what you mean by “...prep it for its function”. The function of RNA is determined by its structure, which in turn depends on its sequence.

A primitive cell could survive without ribosomes. One of the reasons cells today require protein synthesis is because they depend on enzymes to catalyze necessary reactions. If RNA takes on the role of an enzyme, then proteins may not be required.

Also, keep in mind that ribosomes themselves are composed of catalytic RNA in addition to structural proteins. The first primitive ribosome may not have required proteins in order to function, and in my opinion this suggests an answer to the “chicken or egg” question: RNA came first.

#9 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 23 March 2012 - 03:01 PM

The preping is done by snoRNA, (I recently had a lecture on this so its mostly new to me too :) )


miRNA also causes such changes as well as RNA interference, (RNAi) to protect the cell from virus RNA. siRNA just causes RNAi.

However I believe these are coded for on DNA, therefore DNA is required for this system of RNA's in the first place ;)

#10 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 March 2012 - 03:29 PM

A popular hypothesis is that the first “protocell” would have contained RNA, not DNA. RNA can function as both a replication template and an enzyme, which is why it’s a better candidate than DNA for early life. Thus DNA is not necessary for cellular life, nor are organelles or a nucleus... as demonstrated by modern-day bacteria.


"popular hypothesis" means "We Don't Know", and "We're just guessing". Another "popular hypothesis" is that DNA and RNA were "Created" at the same time, therefore both carry the same weight.

#11 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 23 March 2012 - 04:13 PM

The preping is done by snoRNA, (I recently had a lecture on this so its mostly new to me too :) )


miRNA also causes such changes as well as RNA interference, (RNAi) to protect the cell from virus RNA. siRNA just causes RNAi.

However I believe these are coded for on DNA, therefore DNA is required for this system of RNA's in the first place ;)


Yes, modern cellular life depends on DNA and proteins in addition to RNA. I’m not disputing that.

What I am disputing is the claim that has been put forth on this thread that cells and DNA are mutually dependent, and therefore irreducibly complex. The concept of primitive life without DNA is not a biological impossibility, as demonstrated by the observation that RNA can function in vitro both as a template and as an enzyme.

#12 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 23 March 2012 - 04:23 PM

"popular hypothesis" means "We Don't Know", and "We're just guessing". Another "popular hypothesis" is that DNA and RNA were "Created" at the same time, therefore both carry the same weight.


It’s a popular hypothesis because there is evidence supporting it. While scientists cannot prove that it is correct, they can design experiments which either support or fail to support the predictions their hypothesis generates.

I acknowledge and respect your position that RNA and DNA were created, however I have yet to see the empirical evidence supporting it. For this reason, I prefer the evolutionary explanation.

#13 nuttypiglet

nuttypiglet

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • London

Posted 23 March 2012 - 05:34 PM

I remember seeing a report that said the simplest cell cannot survive with less than 300-320 genes. To get that information in the right order would be astounding by chance. It couldn't have happened gradually because ALL are required for a cell to survive. In otherwords to be able to pass things in and out the membrane, chemical processes for energy and nutrition etc etc. No matter which way you look at it, a cell had to come into existence with several processes working at the same time to survive. Maybe this is the reason the latest hypothesis (life came to earth from a meteor) is becoming more popular. It removes the responsibility of having to explain it. It's also amazing how many people believe we were seeded here by aliens from another world. The problem is, who seeded them. There is no magic life factory on another planet which sends cells out on meteorites. I have looked all over the internet and cannot find any sources that can explain how over 300 genes could have formed in the right arrangement to start life.

#14 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 23 March 2012 - 06:19 PM

Yes, modern cellular life depends on DNA and proteins in addition to RNA. I’m not disputing that.

What I am disputing is the claim that has been put forth on this thread that cells and DNA are mutually dependent, and therefore irreducibly complex. The concept of primitive life without DNA is not a biological impossibility, as demonstrated by the observation that RNA can function in vitro both as a template and as an enzyme.


Now all you need to do is somehow find the "RNA world" in vivo.

However as I said you also require the snoRNA that does the preparation for the enzyme functions it does... Hence its much more complex than, here is RNA it can do everything, as the fact that it is used as an enzyme requires these other things put in place, otherwise it won't do its intended job.

#15 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 March 2012 - 06:18 AM



"popular hypothesis" means "We Don't Know", and "We're just guessing". Another "popular hypothesis" is that DNA and RNA were "Created" at the same time, therefore both carry the same weight.


It’s a popular hypothesis because there is evidence supporting it. While scientists cannot prove that it is correct, they can design experiments which either support or fail to support the predictions their hypothesis generates.



It’s a hypothesis because a hypothesis is a “statement that is assumed to be true for the sake of argument”, or “a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation”. A “tentative explanation” is nothing more than provisional and exploratory. And, although a hypothesis may be based upon some observation, it STILL requires “further investigation”, therefore it contains NO validity until the experimentation is complete, and proves it so. On the other side of the coin, and a major reason it is only a hypothesis, is the fact that the experimentation may prove it totally false, and invalidate it.

It’s popular because (and only because) a lot of people like it (i.e. “appealing to or appreciated by a wide range of people”). This adds absolutely no credibility or veracity to the opinion. This is in fact a poor use of logic (Argumentum ad Populum).

One cannot make a substantial argument based upon popularity, or upon a “popular hypothesis”, because BOTH are speculative at best (as I stated in my previous post). And empirical science does not proceed this way; although evolutionary science has been pushing to add gray-area to definitions for decades now.


I acknowledge and respect your position that RNA and DNA were created, however I have yet to see the empirical evidence supporting it. For this reason, I prefer the evolutionary explanation.




And I respect your opinion as well, but this shouldn’t deter either of us from examining the opinions (as they are posted in this forum) for validity, and pointing out any and all errors that we find. This is how we learn!

And, I might add, the only empirical evidence supporting evolution, is that of microevolution. And microevolution is nothing more than “adaptation within a kind/species”; and if that is what it is, why call it evolution at all? Why convolute it?

Macroevolution, on the other hand, has absolutely no evidence via the empirical scientific method.

Having said that, there is plenty of empirical evidence supporting DNA and RNA having been created. In fact, attempting to argue for a “naturalistic origins” for RNA and DNA begs many more questions than can be adduced by the evolutionists (this is why non-theistic and atheistic evolutionists run as fast as they can from the origins questions!). Further, the argument for naturalism finds little, if no, logical, rational or empirical scientific evidence for the origins of anything within this universe, let alone the universe itself.

#16 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 25 March 2012 - 01:32 PM

Now all you need to do is somehow find the "RNA world" in vivo.


It’s unreasonable to expect the RNA world hypothesis to be completely recreated in a lab. Even if the hypothesis is 100% true, we would have no way of recreating it without knowing the exact conditions under which the process occurred.

However as I said you also require the snoRNA that does the preparation for the enzyme functions it does... Hence its much more complex than, here is RNA it can do everything, as the fact that it is used as an enzyme requires these other things put in place, otherwise it won't do its intended job.


snoRNAs are not necessary for RNA modification, as demonstrated by the observation that (to the best of my knowledge) bacteria do not have them... they are unique to eukaryotic cells.

#17 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 25 March 2012 - 02:02 PM

Hi Ron,

It’s a hypothesis because a hypothesis is a “statement that is assumed to be true for the sake of argument”, or “a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation”. A “tentative explanation” is nothing more than provisional and exploratory. And, although a hypothesis may be based upon some observation, it STILL requires “further investigation”, therefore it contains NO validity until the experimentation is complete, and proves it so. On the other side of the coin, and a major reason it is only a hypothesis, is the fact that the experimentation may prove it totally false, and invalidate it.

It’s popular because (and only because) a lot of people like it (i.e. “appealing to or appreciated by a wide range of people”). This adds absolutely no credibility or veracity to the opinion. This is in fact a poor use of logic (Argumentum ad Populum).

One cannot make a substantial argument based upon popularity, or upon a “popular hypothesis”, because BOTH are speculative at best (as I stated in my previous post). And empirical science does not proceed this way; although evolutionary science has been pushing to add gray-area to definitions for decades now.


I’m not trying to make a case for the RNA world hypothesis on the basis that it’s popular. That would be poor logic, as you said. What’s important here is the reason the hypothesis is popular, which is the evidence backing it up. There have been plenty of in vitro and in vivo studies on RNA selection, mutation, and enzymatic function, which overwhelmingly support the predictions made by the RNA world hypothesis. It is the evidence that I am using to back up my argument, not merely the fact that “lots of people believe it”. Sorry if that was unclear.

And I respect your opinion as well, but this shouldn’t deter either of us from examining the opinions (as they are posted in this forum) for validity, and pointing out any and all errors that we find. This is how we learn!


Absolutely. I won’t be offended if you examine and criticize my opinion... that’s why I’m here after all!

And, I might add, the only empirical evidence supporting evolution, is that of microevolution. And microevolution is nothing more than “adaptation within a kind/species”; and if that is what it is, why call it evolution at all? Why convolute it?


There are plenty of traits that are not adaptations, so I disagree with your definition of microevolution.

Macroevolution, on the other hand, has absolutely no evidence via the empirical scientific method.


Macroevolution is not so much a separate process, but rather a term used to describe an evolutionary change at the level of species or higher. If we define species as two organisms that can breed to produce fertile offspring, then macroevolution is simply the point at which fertile offspring are no longer produced. An observable example of macroevolution is that of horses and donkeys. The two species are genetically similar to the point where they can produce offspring, yet the offspring (a mule) is not fertile. This indicates that while they shared a common ancestor at some point in time, they subsequently accumulated genetic differences to the point where they are no longer the same species.

Having said that, there is plenty of empirical evidence supporting DNA and RNA having been created. In fact, attempting to argue for a “naturalistic origins” for RNA and DNA begs many more questions than can be adduced by the evolutionists (this is why non-theistic and atheistic evolutionists run as fast as they can from the origins questions!). Further, the argument for naturalism finds little, if no, logical, rational or empirical scientific evidence for the origins of anything within this universe, let alone the universe itself.


Would you mind showing me the empirical evidence for the creation of DNA and RNA?

As for the question of abiogenesis and the origins of the universe, that’s really not my area of expertise. In my opinion, abiogenesis is not essential to the process of evolution, as most theistic evolutionists would likely tell you, and therefore I see no reason to dwell on it. There was a thread about that awhile ago and it wasn’t getting anywhere... it really just turned into a semantics debate regarding how we define biological evolution. I would prefer not to get into all that again.


#18 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 March 2012 - 02:05 PM

It’s unreasonable to expect the RNA world hypothesis to be completely recreated in a lab. Even if the hypothesis is 100% true, we would have no way of recreating it without knowing the exact conditions under which the process occurred.


In short, there is no evidence under any known conditions that it did, which makes "God created" just as justifiable in hypothetical terms. I don't think people really realize that they are claiming that something is a true scientific theory until it's proven wrong. A valid hypothesis is something that makes accurate predictions which can be evaluated by observation instead of "Science is working on it." Science doesn't work on anything, it's simply a cover for atheism.


Enjoy.

#19 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 March 2012 - 02:11 PM

Would you mind showing me the empirical evidence for the creation of DNA and RNA?



We can't observe it being directly created, but there are empirically based observations that give a quantifiable, and statistical value.

http://video.google....650626003871702

#20 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 27 March 2012 - 01:21 PM

In short, there is no evidence under any known conditions that it did, which makes "God created" just as justifiable in hypothetical terms. I don't think people really realize that they are claiming that something is a true scientific theory until it's proven wrong. A valid hypothesis is something that makes accurate predictions which can be evaluated by observation instead of "Science is working on it." Science doesn't work on anything, it's simply a cover for atheism.


The RNA World hypothesis (and evolutionary hypotheses in general) does lead to predictions that have been empirically tested. For example: If life came from RNA, we would expect RNA molecules to exhibit heritable differences in reproductive success. This has been empirically confirmed (doi:10.1038/35053176), thus supporting the hypothesis.

Science is not about proving a hypothesis, but rather supporting the predictions a hypothesis makes. The more empirical support you find, the stronger your hypothesis. This is true for almost all fields of science (mathematics would be the exception in some cases), not just evolution.

We can't observe it being directly created, but there are empirically based observations that give a quantifiable, and statistical value.

http://video.google....650626003871702


Could you provide a reference for the empirical study you’re referring to? Or if the study is mentioned in the video, would you mind telling me what part?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users