Your quote said, and you bolded it, “read from a fixed starting point”. (Now go ahead and spit broken glass at me.)
…which, as you have surely known all along, still establishes the necessary dimensional orientation of the script (and thus meeting the third criteria of the test).
EDIT: Added link to Bio’s website.
If semiosis is a physical necessity for a cell, then a local dynamics-based RNA world cannot exist, even in theory. Yet you have also stated:
In many different ways, many different folks on this thread have asked you to clarify the seeming contradiction. When I proposed a possibility for reconciling the two, you shot it down. I humbly suggest that you will be making real progress if you stop pretending that there is no need to reconcile the disparate statements you have made.
You have stated the following on your website:
assumptions [being imposed on science] are being unscrupulously defended by the followers of materialism.
And your assumption about the opinions of those who disagree with you seems to make it hard for you to see how you can benefit from our discussion.
Bio, I would hope that you would regard the feedback we’re offering as a help and an aid. Taking seriously the feedback we offer you would help you strengthen your presentation. Even at this late juncture, I hope you will reconsider how you’ve been interacting. When people disagree with you, there is no need to double down and question their character.
Or to insult their understanding of biology. You have described yourself as not being a scientist, and making no pretense of having a scientific background. Yet when Ph.D. biologists with decades of experience have tried to add some nuance to the biology you discuss, you haven’t seemed open to their contributions. By the statements you have been making in this forum, you seem to be claiming to understand the details of DNA/inheritance better than professional biologists, which is puzzling in light of your statement that you don’t claim to have any scientific background.
I’m providing this feedback to you, Bio, because I have found your explanations of semiotics to be very useful, and your ideas intriguing. I’d like to see you incorporate useful feedback into your endeavors. I wish you success.
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
2 Likes
No, Crick was talking about translating a single transcript, not the genome.
Your 5a and 5c are false.
1 Like
[quote=“Sy_Garte, post:156, topic:4388”]
Nobody knows. The theory of RNA world says it is a holdover from that world that survived to the present. But we dont know that is true. [/quote]
You seem do be hedging. It was a prediction of the hypothesis. It is explained by the hypothesis. There’s no other extant explanation for it AFAIK.
Why wouldn’t it necessarily be true?
It had nothing to compete against!
[quote]I have never said that I dont believe in RNA world.
[/quote]I’m pretty sure that you’ve said that there’s no evidence for it, correct?
1 Like
I have noticed that there are some folks who are passionately devoted to RNA world as truth. I dont really like to argue with them, so I wont. If you choose to believe that RNA world was real, that’s fine with me, I would not be upset at all if you turn out to be right. What I would like to know is how RNA world could have started, and how if turned into DNA world. Those are the questions that have no data or even any good theories (at least that I have seen). If you can point me to the contrary (references that are convincing) that would be great.
Because we dont know if a high error rate could allow for evolution. Do you?
Here are the questions as posed by Szathmáry
(1) How can the first self-replicating ribozyme emerge in the absence of template-directed information replication?
(2) How can nucleotide replicators avoid competitive exclusion despite utilizing the very same resources (nucleobases)?
(3) How can the information catastrophe be avoided?
(4) How can enough genes integrate into a cohesive system in order to transition to a cellular stage?
(5) How can the way information is stored and metabolic complexity coevolve to pave to road leading out of the RNA world to the present protein-DNA world?
If semiosis is a physical necessity for a cell, then a local dynamics-based RNA world cannot exist, even in theory … In many different ways, many different folks on this thread have asked you to clarify the seeming contradiction.
Chris, I clarified this before you came aboard, and then again specifically at your request. In your response you chose not address a single point I made. It is the effective equivalent as if I had said nothing at all. And frankly, if you read carefully the first four posts by Steve and my first four responses, I would say that one must strain to continue suggesting there is a contradiction. There isn’t.
The RNA world hypothesis refers to the possibility of a self-replicating RNA molecule. A living cell is a heterogeneous entity of dissimilar parts, organized by the translation of an informational medium. One does not equal the other. They are not the same systems, they do not function in the same way and are not equal in the range of effects they are capable of producing. And if we cannot say that an RNA self-replicator is impossible, that does not mean that it is suddenly equal in its capacity to semiotic translation. It is not equal because it must adhere to the local dynamics that the semiotic organization is independent of. One is capable of a code using combinatorial permutations, and the other is not.
Bio, I would hope that you would regard the feedback we’re offering as a help and an aid.
You needn’t worry about me taking this seriously; as I said, I am as capable of making a mistake as anyone else, and I certainly can express valid points in less than perfect language. But this is why I debate the issues in an open forum. For instance, I say on Biosemiosis.org that the cell’s translation machinery must establish the dimensional orientation of the representations it has in memory. Specifically I state: “3) In addition to translation protocols, the operation of the system will also require systematic protocols to establish the dimensional operation of the system itself”, and (in a conversation here on Biologos) I gave some examples of some of the things the cell does to accommodate this requirement, such as three bases to a codon, a start function to set the reading frame, direction of reading, and the ability to control the length of a protein. We also talked about promoters and termination factors. Yet there is a biologist on this forum so intent on saying my argument is false, he is willing to throw out the cell’s capacity to establish the reading frame and control protein length. This became an exercise in gotcha, where context is unimportant and observed realities matter even less. You may see this and an aid, but I do not.
By the statements you have been making in this forum, you seem to be claiming to understand the details of DNA/inheritance better than professional biologists
I’ve never made such a claim at all. But there is a flipside; biologists are human beings. They are subject to all of the human failings that we are all subject to. I have had biologists (perhaps hundreds by now) that will tell me that translation is completely reducible to chemistry. Others will tell me that there is no actual information inside the cell at all. Others tell me I’m lying for Jesus. If I am expected to get down on a knee for this, I am certainly going to fail at those expectations.
I’m providing this feedback to you, Bio, because I have found your explanations of semiotics to be very useful, and your ideas intriguing.
Thank you kindly.
cheers…
Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response, Bio. I find your latest formulation much clearer than the previous ones, so perhaps (if my reading ability is a good indicator) this has been a useful exercise.
I am still reluctant to draw conclusions of natural theology (i.e., is a living cell proof of an intelligent designer) based on the semiotic nature of biological information. I have this sneaking suspicion that a decade or a century or a millenium from now, biologists will have the tools to disprove or confirm the plausibility of an RNA world.
Cheers…
Hello Sy,
I don’t believe in the RNA World, and I really don’t think it’s legitimate for you to put it in terms of belief. It’s an interesting hypothesis with a lot of evidence supporting it–more than any other.
The protein synthesis machinery strongly suggests RNA World - RNA/Protein world - Central Dogma World.
Now you said that the ribozyme, peptidyl transferase, works pretty well. What evidence suggests that it works better than a protein catalyst?
1 Like
Ben, with all due respect, I do not enjoy your interrogatory style. It has been a very very long time since my thesis defense, and I do not much like the examination approach of asking people questions you know the answer to. Try to find another way to dialog with me. I actually do have better things to do.
1 Like
That is not correct. It’s certainly not what I mean by the RNA world hypothesis, and I’ve never heard anyone else use it that way either. It refers to a world in which cells, bounded by fatty acid membranes and containing complex mixtures of different RNA molecules carrying out “an entire range of enzymic activities”, to quote the piece that introduced the idea. These cells are heterogeneous and they’re alive. They’re what I’ve always been talking about.
2 Likes
the problem is that so far scientific experiments showed that at least dozens of genes need for a minimal cell:
so so far scientific method doesnt support abiogenesis at all.
another interesting point is that the self replication process made by proteins and not ribozymes. so the fact that the ppt made of rna cant support the rna world.
Correct. That robot has no connection to the argument. And EVEN IF that one robot was self-replicating, it would do nothing to salvage an irrelevant argument which evolution-deniers have been using for decades. Besides, we have no need to be arguing ANALOGIES to Common Descent because FOR MANY DECADES we have *observing evolutionary processes and common descent at work! (Surely by now we should have progressed beyond empty chants like “But it’s still a bacteria!”, as if the naming conventions of human language somehow govern the biosphere and the laws of physics!")
Analogies are sometimes useful in teaching people what evolution is like. But analogies have no place in “proving” or “disproving” what the Scientific Method has already established. In teaching physics, it can be useful to demonstrate to students that light sometimes behaves in ways analogous to waves and sometimes in ways analogous to particles—but that does NOT mean that any reputable physicist is going to publish some argument overturning something we know about light because of an argument based upon those teaching analogies!
Of course, real scientists already know this. And they don’t expect non-scientists to be the source of new discoveries in physics. Of course, we do a disservice to the general public if/when we give ANY impression that non-scientists are equipped to make such contributions as principal investigators in peer-reviewed “paradigm changing” studies.
Of course, one doesn’t have to be a scientist to know that machines DO NOT REPRODUCE in any way which makes them a good analogy to the nested hierarchies of biological organisms----despite the occasional desperate analogical attempts to debunk Common Descent or even the Theory of Evolution that one sometimes finds on origins ministry websites. Thankfully, the very few science PhDs from top universities in relevant fields of the academy who write for YEC ministry websites rarely (if ever) resort to such analogies. I’ve appreciated Dr. Todd Wood’s perseverance and patience [He’s probably the most honest YEC I’ve ever known] in rejecting the failed analogies which have been embarrassing the “creation science” movement since the 1960’s. I congratulate him for his willingness to identify and oppose the kinds of propaganda disasters which harm the credibility of Christ-followers in general— no matter how popular, traditional, and effective in fundraising those lame arguments may be." (There is also great value in reminding ourselves that we can all be prone to illogical thinking at one time or another. Group social dynamics can sometimes draw us into all sorts of human foibles which we might think ourselves immune!)
If I were still an anti-evolution YEC, I wouldn’t want to pretend that different models of cars could just as easily be drawn up as NESTED HIERARCHIES demonstrating Common Descent----because it would remind the reader that I had never learned the differences between Common Descent and Common Design: the diagrams would look nothing alike! Indeed, at the very time when it seemed like the Young Earth Creationist movement had abandoned those failed machine-analogies, they experienced a “revival” of sorts among amateur IDers. (The “Common Design looks just like Common Descent” mantra has even become a dead giveaway with various of the Poe-playing satirists who frequent some of the ChristianForums.com threads. They like to impersonate Young Earth Creationist and IDers because they think it is a good way to ridicule theism in general. They tend to overplay their stereotyping and so one learns to watch for their favorite memes and mantras.)
Why not simply practice full disclosure and say: " I reject Common Descent because I consider it incompatible with my interpretations of the Bible." ? I appreciate Kurt Wise for being very openly honest in that way. He makes crystal clear that NO MATTER HOW MUCH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE he will ever be shown, he will REJECT THAT EVIDENCE. I strongly disagree with a theology which insists that God gave us a Book of Creation which totally contradicts God’s Book of Scripture—but I applaud Dr. Wise for being honest about WHY he believes what he believes.
Dr. Todd Wood is another Young Earth Creationist who deserve far more recognition than he gets, especially praise for his honesty. How sad that he is largely IGNORED by the “creation science” Young Earth Creationist world—because he is a rare voice of honesty CONSISTENTLY WILLING to rebuke those in his ranks who (1) who dishonestly quote mine and (2) who convince so many non-believers that one has to reject all science and logic in order to follow Christ and affirm the Bible.
Obviously: NO. Just as “A chimpanzee doesn’t change into a human” and just as “A dinosaur doesn’t change into a chicken”…or any number of other failed and embarrassingly lame straw man anti-evolution arguments persist because we evangelical Christians in the USA have tolerated such foolishness in our ranks for far too long. Young Earth Creationists would do much to bolster their movement if they did more policing of such arguments from among their constituents.
Should we do more to draw lines in the sand?
I wish there were more ways in which Christians who care about honesty and evidence could somehow encourage our origins mega-ministry leader brethren to learn from the honesty of Dr. Wood and Dr. Wise et al and bring to an end that sad legacy of pseudo-science nonsense. Young Earth Creationist leaders like Ken Ham and Ray Comfort are not hesitant to name names as they denounce as alleged “false teachers” those who fail to agree with their theology. (How often do we here of “Compromising Christians” and even “not a True Christian™”.) So I do often ask myself where civility should end and where protecting the sheep should begin.
Honestly. I’m not trying to be trite or pseudo-dramatic. I often struggle with exactly where to draw the line. The same Bible which tells us to respectfully reason with our elders as we would with our fathers also says that the rod is for the backs of fools! Was it profuse civility which finally got my attention and challenged me to clearly separate myself from the false teaching of my out-of-control ‘creation science’ brethren of the 1960’s and 1970’s? No! It was a nail-studded 2"x4" skillfully wielded by a straight-talking (!) Roman Catholic colleague from the Physics Department who helped me to admit to myself that I was blindly repeating the “flood geology” nonsense of a hydraulics engineer with a publications CV no better than mine despite being much older. Worse yet, I was emulating his bad habit of totally reversing the appropriate burden of proof.
Who has the Burden of Proof?
Indeed, how often do science-denialists declare the science academy “all wrong” and then demand that the scientists spoon feed to them and tutor one-on-one what they could learn from any textbook on their own? I saw a good example of this the other day on Mark Armitage’s Youtube channel. It’s a great example of YECist reversing of the burden of proof:
-
He accuses fellow Bible-affirming Christian, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, of all sorts of evil compromising and aiding Satan in promoting “naturalistic science” and atheism when she suggests that iron compounds in the soft-tissue remnants found in dinosaur fossils may have preserved DNA segments for many millions of years. She freely admits that considerable research is needed in that area before the means of preservation can be understood.
-
Armitage then denounced all Old Earth Christians as rejecting the clearly stated truths of scripture and he challenged them to accept their burden of proof! As one devoted fan paraphrased Armitage: “If Schweitzer and her atheist friends can’t explain the mechanism by which iron compounds preserve DNA for many millions of years, then we are forced to conclude that the dinosaurs fossils dated from just a few thousand years ago!” Wow!
-
Talk about playing games with the burden of proof! What a “lazy scientist’s” way of IGNORING all of the CONSILIENCE OF EVIDENCE for a very old earth! Armitage thinks he can ignore radiometric evidence, dendrochronology evidence, varve evidence, plate tectonics evidence, genomic evidence, ice core evidence, and more as he drank his coffee and challenged a colleague of mine on Youtube to “Either put up or shut up! Show us your peer-reviewed evidence for soft-tissue and DNA preservation for millions of years by means of iron compounds. If you can’t, then you must admit that the dinosaurs lived just a few thousand years ago and the earth is young—just as the Bible declared all along!”
-
No. **The science academy has already presented the peer-reviewed evidence and analysis establishing the age of the earth in millions and billions of years. Those who claim otherwise have the burden of proof upon them----although it is obvious why they would wish to relax, sit back, and demand that the science academy drop what it is doing and cater exclusively to their remedial education. That’s why these exercises take place here rather than in Scientific American or in Nature.
SUMMARY: aka “A Reality Check”
(1) The science establishing a very old earth and Common Descent was settled long ago. Peer-review has moved on to describing the details of the science.
(2) If someone believes that the science academy is all wrong, they are welcomed to take on the burden of proof and publish their refutations based upon evidence and analysis of that evidence. If they succeed, I will be among the first to congratulate them and praise them for their Nobel Prize.
(3) It is never the job of the academy to endlessly replay—to those outside of the academy— the events of the history of science where the burden of proof was already met and profusely published, as if science can’t go forward until the last recalcitrant straggler feels “convinced”. When denialists demand “Prove to me that…”, we are entirely justified in saying, “Here’s where the evidence and analysis has been published. Read it and learn. If you think you can refute, go at it.”
2 Likes
Wow. There is only one thing to say.
AMEN!
I would respectfully submit that there isnt much left to say after that piece. Let’s move on.
That is true, but I’m sure somebody will say, “not really…”
so if i will show you that this claim isnt true, you will change your mind about evolution?
If you want to pursue that discussion, dcs, you should probably start a new thread.
1 Like
Has anyone here read Denton’s book, which I naively suppose is still the subject of this discussion? I have read the free chapter on the DI site, and can see major problems already. But I have only read one “review,” by Larry Moran, and it was just about the structuralism that Denton embraces. (This was already clear in his previous book, IIRC.) Darrel Falk’s review seemed more a commentary on the DI than a summary of Denton’s argument. The title is most unfortunate, and could hardly have been worse from a scientific vantage point. A book that announces that evolution is a “theory in crisis” that is published by the DI is a book that has no intention of being taken seriously by scientists. And yet Prof Falk calls it “amazing.” I am very interested in thoughts from those who have read it.
But I do think that some of the experiments used to demonstrate RNA evolution are not very convincing, especially those that use PCR to “help” the evolution along.
Can you cite some sources here? What do you mean by “demonstrated RNA evolution,” and how was PCR used in those experiments? I know rather a lot about the topic, and these comments don’t fit well at all with what we know about RNA evolution or the use of PCR. Thanks.
“Amazing.” Interesting word choice.
At this point I will simply point out that I found Stephen Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt absolutely amazing. Indeed, I had the same reaction to Jason Lisle’s The Ultimate Proof of God. [Keep in mind that I’m a born-again Christian theist and I believe God intelligently designed everything. I say that only to eschew any presumptions that I’m an angry atheist or whatever.]
Indeed, if I had to assess many of the books published by ID advocates using just one word, “amazing” is probably the most diplomatic word I could choose.
(For those who are unclear on my meaning, I’ll put it this way: If a friend asks me, “How did you like my new recipe?”, I sometimes feel inclined to answer, “Interesting! Very interesting!” Calling a book “amazing” is somewhat similar. Translation: “Amazing means that I want to stay on speaking terms with the author.”)