DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano high-technology that defies naturalistic explanations
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokary...
DNA replication is the most crucial step in cellular division, a process necessary for life, and errors can cause cancer and many other diseases. Genome duplication presents a formidable enzymatic challenge, requiring the high fidelity replication of millions of bases of DNA. It is a incredible system involving a city of proteins, enzymes, and other components that are breathtaking in their complexity and efficiency.
How do you get a living cell capable of self-reproduction from a “protein compound … ready to undergo still more complex changes”? Dawkins has to admit:
“Darwin, in his ‘warm little pond’ paragraph, speculated that the key event in the origin of life might have been the spontaneous arising of a protein, but this turns out to be less promising than most of Darwin’s ideas. … But there is something that proteins are outstandingly bad at, and this Darwin overlooked. They are completely hopeless at replication. They can’t make copies of themselves. This means that the key step in the origin of life cannot have been the spontaneous arising of a protein.” (pp. 419–20)
The process of DNA replication depends on many separate protein catalysts to unwind, stabilize, copy, edit, and rewind the original DNA message. In prokaryotic cells, DNA replication involves more than thirty specialized proteins to perform tasks necessary for building and accurately copying the genetic molecule. These specialized proteins include DNA polymerases, primases, helicases, topoisomerases, DNA-binding proteins, DNA ligases, and editing enzymes. DNA needs these proteins to copy the genetic information contained in DNA. But the proteins that copy the genetic information in DNA are themselves built from that information. This again poses what is, at the very least, a curiosity: the production of proteins requires DNA, but the production of DNA requires proteins.
Proponents of Darwinism are at a loss to tell us how this marvelous system began. Charles Darwin's main contribution, natural selection, does not apply until a system can reproduce all its parts. Getting a reproducible cell in a primordial soup is a giant leap, for which today's evolutionary biologists have no answer, no evidence, and no hope. It amounts to blind faith to believe that undirected, purposeless accidents somehow built the smallest, most complex, most efficient system known to man.
Several decades of experimental work have convinced us that DNA synthesis and replication actually require a plethora of proteins.
Replication of the genetic material is the single central property of living systems. Dawkins provocatively claimed that organisms are but vehicles for replicating and evolving genes, and I believe that this simple concept captures a key aspect of biological evolution. All phenotypic features of organisms—indeed, cells and organisms themselves as complex physical entities—emerge and evolve only inasmuch as they are conducive to genome replication. That is, they enhance the rate of this process, or, at least, do not impede it.
According to mainstream scientific papers, the following twenty protein and protein complexes are essential for prokaryotic DNA replication. Each one mentioned below. They cannot be reduced. If one is missing, DNA replication cannot occur:
Pre-replication complex Formation of the pre-RC is required for DNA replication to occur
DnaA The crucial component in the initiation process is the DnaA protein
DiaA this novel protein plays an important role in regulating the initiation of chromosomal replication via direct interactions with the DnaA initiator.
DAM methylase It’s gene expression requires full methylation of GATC at its promoter region.
DnaB helicase Helicases are essential enzymes for DNA replication, a fundamental process in all living organisms.
DnaC Loading of the DnaB helicase is the key step in replication initiation. DnaC is essential for replication in vitro and in vivo.
HU-proteins HU protein is required for proper synchrony of replication initiation
SSB Single-stranded binding proteins Single-stranded DNA binding proteins are essential for the sequestration and processing of single-stranded DNA. 6
SSBs from the OB domain family play an essential role in the maintenance of genome stability, functioning in DNA replication, the repair of damaged DNA, the activation of cell cycle checkpoints, and in telomere maintenance. SSB proteins play an essential role in DNA metabolism by protecting single-stranded DNA and by mediating several important protein–protein interactions. 7
Hexameric DNA helicases DNA helicases are essential during DNA replication because they separate double-stranded DNA into single strands allowing each strand to be copied.
DNA polymerase I and III DNA polymerase 3 is essential for the replication of the leading and the lagging strands whereas DNA polymerase 1 is essential for removing of the RNA primers from the fragments and replacing it with the required nucleotides.
DnaG Primases They are essential for the initiation of such phenomena because DNA polymerases are incapable of de novo synthesis and can only elongate existing strands
Topoisomerases are essential in the separation of entangled daughter strands during replication. This function is believed to be performed by topoisomerase II in eukaryotes and by topoisomerase IV in prokaryotes. Failure to separate these strands leads to cell death.
Sliding clamp and clamp loader the clamp loader is a crucial aspect of the DNA replication machinery. Sliding clamps are DNA-tracking platforms that are essential for processive DNA replication in all living organisms
Primase (DnaG) Primases are essential RNA polymerases required for the initiation of DNA replication, lagging strand synthesis and replication restart. They are essential for the initiation of such phenomena because DNA polymerases are incapable of de novo synthesis and can only elongate existing strands.
RTP-Ter complex Ter sequences would not seem to be essential, but they may prevent overreplication by one fork in the event that the other is delayed or halted by an encounter with DNA damage or some other obstacle
Ribonuclease H RNase H1 plays essential roles in generating and clearing RNAs that act as primers of DNA replication.
Replication restart primosome Replication restart primosome is a complex dynamic system that is essential for bacterial survival.
DNA repair:
RecQ helicase In prokaryotes RecQ is necessary for plasmid recombination and DNA repair from UV-light, free radicals, and alkylating agents.
RecJ nuclease the repair machinery must be designed to act on a variety of heterogeneous DNA break sites.
It seems to me that DNA replication is interlocked, interdependent and consistent of several irreducible complex subsystems. Since evolution depends on it, it could not have emerged through evolution. Even less through random chance or physical necessity. Special creation through a incredibly intelligent powerful creator is therefor the best explanation for DNA replication.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Preach, my brotha! Love the post!
The name of the book was Origin of "Species" not "Life". It is an explanation of how species diverge and take on new niches in their environment, not how life emerged from a "primordial soup". You've confused a provable concept with an unexplained phenomena. Just another case of misinformation.
Irreducible complexity is just a term meaning we (you, I, the scientific community or "they") don't understand the subject yet, I wish people would stop using it.
@Otangelo Grasso
"Proponents of Darwinism are at a loss to tell us how this marvelous system began. Charles Darwin's main contribution, natural selection, does not apply until a system can reproduce all its parts. Getting a reproducible cell in a primordial soup is a giant leap, for which today's evolutionary biologists have no answer, no evidence, and no hope. It amounts to blind faith to believe that undirected, purposeless accidents somehow built the smallest, most complex, most efficient system known to man."
This is your wishful and misleading interpretation of the situation. You want scientists and non-believers to have "blind faith", so you try to paint it as such. What you, and many like you, don't seem to understand is that the only honest answer is "we don't know".
When there is a gap in knowledge, you automatically insert "goddidit", and that is not okay from a scientific point of view. That is NOT what the evidence points towards. You are intentionally searching for gaps in evidence and knowledge with the explicit intent to "insert god", then preach about it. This is a deceitful and despicable behaviour and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Now, we simply don't know yet how life began, but I find the Abiogenesis hypotheses exceedingly more likely than the fantasy that a supernatural entity initiated life.
"Since evolution depends on it, it could not have emerged through evolution."
This is just wrong. As analytical and well read as you seem to be, you cant be this ignorant. I'll try to spell it out for you:
E̲ᴠ̲ᴏ̲ʟ̲ᴜ̲ᴛ̲ɪ̲ᴏ̲ɴ̲ ̲ʜ̲ᴀ̲s̲ ̲ɴ̲ᴏ̲ᴛ̲ʜ̲ɪ̲ɴ̲ɢ̲ ̲ᴛ̲ᴏ̲ ̲ᴅ̲ᴏ̲ ̲ᴡ̲ɪ̲ᴛ̲ʜ̲ ̲A̲ʙ̲ɪ̲ᴏ̲ɢ̲ᴇ̲ɴ̲ᴇ̲s̲ɪ̲s̲.̲
T̲ʜ̲ᴇ̲ʏ̲ ̲ᴀ̲ʀ̲ᴇ̲ ̲ᴛ̲ᴡ̲ᴏ̲ ̲s̲ᴇ̲ᴘ̲ᴀ̲ʀ̲ᴀ̲ᴛ̲ᴇ̲ ̲ᴀ̲ɴ̲ᴅ̲ ̲ᴅ̲ɪ̲ғ̲ғ̲ᴇ̲ʀ̲ᴇ̲ɴ̲ᴛ̲ ̲ᴄ̲ᴏ̲ɴ̲ᴄ̲ᴇ̲ᴘ̲ᴛ̲s̲.̲
---
To continue where you vanished the last time...
You still haven't answered my questions (that you yourself said was valid questions):
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/comment/29562
Perhaps you could only answer the first one:
- What connects all the information that you interpret as supporting intelligent design, to your specific religion and denomination?
You promote intelligent design, but if that for the sake of argument was true, it would still not connect to Christianity in any way. It could just as well be a Deistic god, who initiated life then left it to sort out itself. Likewise it could just as well be that Allah initiated life, or Brahma, or Waheguru.
Nowhere in DNA or on the Earth's crust do we find the information "Made by God/The Holy Spirit/Jesus".
When there is a gap in knowledge, you automatically insert "goddidit" // thats not my modo operandi.
Precisely BECAUSE WE KNOW that each of the described and mentioned parts is indispensable, it had to arise all at once. We know of intelligence being able to project, plan and make such a motor-like system based on lots of information , and it could not have emerged through evolution ( even less so because evolution depends on dna replication being in place ) we can infer rationally design as the best explanation. Chance is no reasonable option to explain the origin of DNA replication since the individual parts would have no function by their own, and there is no reason why matter aleatory-like would group itself in such highly organized and complex machine-like system.
"Since evolution depends on it, it could not have emerged through evolution."
This is just wrong. As analytical and well read as you seem to be, you cant be this ignorant. I'll try to spell it out for you:
E̲ᴠ̲ᴏ̲ʟ̲ᴜ̲ᴛ̲ɪ̲ᴏ̲ɴ̲ ̲ʜ̲ᴀ̲s̲ ̲ɴ̲ᴏ̲ᴛ̲ʜ̲ɪ̲ɴ̲ɢ̲ ̲ᴛ̲ᴏ̲ ̲ᴅ̲ᴏ̲ ̲ᴡ̲ɪ̲ᴛ̲ʜ̲ ̲A̲ʙ̲ɪ̲ᴏ̲ɢ̲ᴇ̲ɴ̲ᴇ̲s̲ɪ̲s̲.̲
T̲ʜ̲ᴇ̲ʏ̲ ̲ᴀ̲ʀ̲ᴇ̲ ̲ᴛ̲ᴡ̲ᴏ̲ ̲s̲ᴇ̲ᴘ̲ᴀ̲ʀ̲ᴀ̲ᴛ̲ᴇ̲ ̲ᴀ̲ɴ̲ᴅ̲ ̲ᴅ̲ɪ̲ғ̲ғ̲ᴇ̲ʀ̲ᴇ̲ɴ̲ᴛ̲ ̲ᴄ̲ᴏ̲ɴ̲ᴄ̲ᴇ̲ᴘ̲ᴛ̲s̲.̲ /// thats not a logical answer to my point.
Perhaps you could only answer the first one:
- What connects all the information that you interpret as supporting intelligent design, to your specific religion and denomination? ///
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1753-a-cumulative-case-for-the-...
You promote intelligent design, but if that for the sake of argument was true, it would still not connect to Christianity in any way. // It doesnt.
@Otangelo Grasso
"When there is a gap in knowledge, you automatically insert "goddidit" // thats not my modo operandi."
It sure looks like it is, since you both claim intelligent design and promote Christianity. Or are you claiming that extraterrestrial aliens designed life on Earth? (When you are trying to appear intellectual by using Latin phrases, perhaps you should spell them correctly, it's "modus operandi").
"Precisely BECAUSE WE KNOW that each of the described and mentioned parts is indispensable, it had to arise all at once." ... "we can infer rationally design as the best explanation. Chance is no reasonable option to explain the origin of DNA replication since the individual parts would have no function by their own"
In my view, chance is still more reasonable than an intelligent designer. That individual parts would have no function by their own, is an assumption. We might just be unaware of other functions for it or there could have been other functions for it that are not around any more.
"... /// thats not a logical answer to my point."
Well you did say "it could not have emerged through evolution."
What are you talking about then? If you are talking about different types of evolution, like "biological evolution" (as in the theory of evolution) and "Chemical evolution", you have to start specifying what you mean.
So, again as an answer to my question: "- What connects all the information that you interpret as supporting intelligent design, to your specific religion and denomination?"
...you post a link to those bloated pages of misinformation.
It's not even a serious answer to claim that "Fulfilled prophecy in the bible", "The resurrection of Jesus Christ" or "The occurrence of miracles" are in any way proof of anything, much less a connection for intelligent design to Christianity. It's not even close to an answer.
"You promote intelligent design, but if that for the sake of argument was true, it would still not connect to Christianity in any way. // It doesnt."
This on the other hand is an answer! Thank you!
But why then did you post a link to the massive jibber-jabber about "A cumulative case for the God of the bible"???
Anyway, your answer is correct: "It doesn't".
There is nothing connecting back to any specific religion. This is the point I have been trying to make. Arguing for "Intelligent Design" is to argue for a Deistic god, nothing more.
And here is the catch:
To argue for intelligent design, still requires you to fill the gap with religious scripture even though Intelligent Design has no connection back to any religious scripture. Because of the question: Where did the intelligent designer come from? It has to be an intelligence that did not have to be designed, so it has to be stated that this intelligence is "eternal", and did not have a creator on it's own. So it's back to the holy scriptures, but I.D. has no connection back to any such scripture.
As the Prag says, the 'goddiit' is fatally flawed. If you go back a few hundred years, say before the Principia, we knew very little about anything, so you could say 'goddiit' about an awful lot of things. But you would have been wrong because we now understand it. Just the same now: we're working on it and soon we'll understand everything, and there will be nowhere for god to hide.
Is intelligent design and irreducible complexity merely an "argument from ignorance?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1720-is-intelligent-design-mere...
In an explanatory context, arguments from ignorance have the form:
Premise One: Cause X cannot produce or explain evidence E. Conclusion: Therefore, cause Y produced or explains E.
Critics of intelligent design claim that the argument for intelligent design takes this form as well. As one of my frequent debating partners, Michael Shermer, likes to argue, "Intelligent design argues that life is too specifically complex (complex structures like DNA) to have evolved by natural forces. Therefore, life must have been created by an
intelligent designer." In short, critics claim that ID proponents argue as follows:
Premise One: Material causes cannot produce or explain specified information.
Conclusion: Therefore, an intelligent cause produced specified biological information.
If proponents of intelligent design were arguing in the preceding manner, they would be guilty of arguing from ignorance. But the argument takes the following form:
Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, organelles, and bodyparts, and even of animals and plants, aka moths and flowers, for example.
Or to put it more formally, the case for intelligent design made here has the form:
Premise One: Causes A through X do not produce evidence E. Premise Two: Cause Y can and does produce E.
Conclusion: Y explains E better than A through X.
1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. 1
Just be patient. We will soon know the real truth. ID is just wriggle room for god....
Now I have a little more time, there two more issues to add.
ID is not the most likely solution, since it begs the question of who or what the IDer really is, which is not addressed. In order to have an IDer, you would have to say what that is, which means explaining it. Which you haven't.
Then there is the obvious problem with ID, based on logic rather than belief: if nature is so complicated that it requires ID, then so by definition must the IDer, since it would have to be as complicated as nature. So who or what created the IDer? Another, superior IDer? And who created that one? Why another one, and so ad infinitum.
As I said above, this is just an attempt to retain some form of role for god, and doesn't work.
Any legitimate thesis verified by observable proof, cannot end with "it seems to me."
Atheism is not a point of view, it is a state of being.
Sell your snake oil somewhere else.
If an engineer designed the human body, that engineer would be fired and never work in the field again. Think about how ridiculous it is that we eat, drink, and breath through the same hole. A lethal accident, just waiting to happen.
Not to mention my spectacles, 'cos eyes don't have any error correction.
Never mind my backache 'cos the design is rubbish.
Never mind...oh, what's the point? The thing is garbage and doesn't last long, either.