Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alate_One

Well-known member
Nope.

I am saying random mutations and natural selection cannot provide a pathway to a process that relies on design and intent.

If squids had a system where they had billions of offspring that all introduced random changes to their RNA and the ones that survived, uh survived, to do the same, perhaps that would be understandable from an evolutionary point of view.
You mean like the system that is actually functioning in all species right now (natural selection)? Or how the cells of vertebrates intentionally (and randomly) mutate their own DNA to generate variation in antibodies and then select the best ones?

Random mutation and selection works. Humans use it for our own technological purposes, our bodies use it and it's clearly generated resistance to antibiotics and herbicides in a variety of species.

I think your problem is you don't understand the difference between DNA and RNA.

What you really wanted was for the squid to recode its own DNA so you're pretending recoding RNA is the same thing.

No surprise there.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well, the post that I was responding to from 6days was intermixing the terms "code" "information system" and "meaning" pretty indiscriminately.
Their ideas were perfectly reasonable until you demanded they adhere strictly to your limited use of certain words.

Ok. That just doesn't follow. The meaning that DNA encodes is protein sequences, which operate without any need of intelligence. It is all messaging between chemicals which don't seem to be intelligent.
Try again. Ink on paper is not intelligence, but writing implies an author.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Evidence. Remember?

Declaring yourself correct doesn't work.

Indeed it doesn't, so stop attempting it and hope to pretend that others don't notice. You recall that absolute joke of a thread where for some insane reason you tried to take on TH over law? Where you didn't actually possess even a layman's understanding of due process?

Even you must cringe at that one.
 

Daedalean's_Sun

New member
It is insane to insist that the RNA arose by random mutation and natural selection.

Your argument doesn't seem to rely particularly on RNA-editing, but rather the existence of any RNA at all. This is hardly a new argument, one that we've personally been over; Your reasoning on the matter begins and ends at personal incredulity.

To make an analogy, it would be like an editor making changes to a book to improve its reception in different markets, but insisting that the material was not written by an author.

Is this not just another Watchmaker Argument?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I stand by what I said.
I did not contest what you said — apart from to call it pedantic.

Prove it.
Where we find meaning conveyed through writing — in every example — we automatically assume an author without ever thinking about it. It is only when evolutionary theory is challenged that there are suddenly demands that we prove text has an author.

Given the situation, I think it is up to you to prove the non-standard argument that there might be writing without an author.
 

6days

New member
Aside from the fact that your guy ignored natural selection, he's flat out wrong. I've taught kids as young as 7th graders to set up simulations that do both.
You better read the article again.
If you like, I can show you a simple dice game that will give you an increase in fitness or stasis depending on the environment.

Want to try it?
Both of us can play games with dice where we set the rules to get the results we want.
Want to try it?
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Evidence. Remember?
Yup. I have loads. Where's yours?

Here is a list of broad categories of evidence (pretty good since it's from "for dummies.com" :chuckle: )



-Biochemistry is the study of the basic chemistry and processes that occur in cells. The biochemistry of all living things on Earth is incredibly similar, showing that all of Earth’s organisms share a common ancestry.

-Comparative anatomy is the comparison of the structures of different living things. This figure compares the skeletons of humans, cats, whales, and bats, illustrating how similar they are even though these animals live unique lifestyles in very different environments. The best explanation for similarities like the ones among these skeletons is that the various species on Earth evolved from common ancestors.

362621.image0.jpg

Comparative anatomy of the bones in the front limbs of humans, cats, whales, and bats.
[Credit: Ill
Credit: Illustration by Kathryn Born, M.A
Comparative anatomy of the bones in the front limbs of humans, cats, whales, and bats.]

-Biogeography, the study of living things around the globe, helps solidify Darwin’s theory of biological evolution. Basically, if evolution is real, you’d expect groups of organisms that are related to one another to be clustered near one another because related organisms come from the same common ancestor.

-On the other hand, if evolution isn’t real, there’s no reason for related groups of organisms to be found near one another. When biogeographers compare the distribution of organisms living today or those that lived in the past (from fossils), they find that species are distributed around Earth in a pattern that reflects their genetic relationships to one another.

-Comparative embryology compares the embryos of different organisms. The embryos of many animals, from fish to humans, show similarities that suggest a common ancestor.

-Molecular biology focuses on the structure and function of the molecules that make up cells. Molecular biologists have compared gene sequences among species, revealing similarities among even very different organisms.

-Paleontology is the study of prehistoric life through fossil evidence. The fossil record (all the fossils ever found and the information gained from them) shows detailed evidence of the changes in living things through time.

-Modern examples of biological evolution can be measured by studying the results of scientific experiments that measure evolutionary changes in the populations of organisms that are alive today. In fact, you need only look in the newspaper or hop online to see evidence of evolution in action in the form of the increase in the number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

-Radioisotope dating estimates the age of fossils and other rocks by examining the ratio of isotopes in rocks. Isotopes are different forms of the atoms that make up matter on Earth. Some isotopes, called radioactive isotopes, discard particles over time and change into other elements.

Scientists know the rate at which this radioactive decay occurs, so they can take rocks and analyze the elements within them. Radioisotope dating indicates that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, which is plenty old enough to allow for the many changes in Earth’s species due to biological evolution.



Specific pieces of evidence, chosen to represent the categories above (not even remotely an exhaustive list).

A fossil named Archaeopteryx has many features in common with reptiles but also, like birds, shows evidence of feathers.

The genetic code of all life on Earth is written in the same chemical building blocks.

Some genes from the bacterium E. coli have sequences that are similar to genes found in humans.

In the 1940s, infections by the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus could be treated successfully with penicillin. Today, populations exist that are completely resistant to natural penicillin, as well as to partially modified penicillins like methicillin. These populations, called MRSA, are very challenging to modern medical professionals.

Whales have tiny, useless bones inside the rear portion of their bodies that are very similar to the bones found in vertebrate legs.

Human embryos have gill slits like those seen in fish embryos. (Developing fish retain their gill slits, whereas humans don’t.)

Marsupial mammals (mammals like kangaroos that protect their young in a pouch) live in just a few places in the world today — Australia, South America, and part of North America. Although Australia is now thousands of miles away from the Americas, in the past the three continents were connected as one larger land mass.

Fossils of the earliest life forms on Earth, which look like bacterial cells, occur in rocks that scientists estimate to be 3.5 billion years old.



And that's just the "for dummies" version. What they failed to mention is there are similarities *and differences* between organisms. Organisms aren't equally similar to one another, and it doesn't depend on appearance. For example: humans are far more similar at the DNA level to chimpanzees and monkeys such as macaques than rats are to mice. And dolphins and cows are about as similar to one another as mice and rats are to one another as well as cats are to dogs!

Then there's human chromosome #2, and endogenous retroviruses, the various pseudogenes, the bits of egg yolk protein left in our DNA (molecular fossils), evidence for recent human evolution - lactose tolerance and my personal favorite the evidence that viral components were essential in the evolution of placental mammals.

And the list could go on almost forever.

Declaring yourself correct doesn't work.
Irony meter got pegged again. Where is your evidence for your assertion that RNA editing *couldn't* have evolved when there's so much evidence evolution happened and is happening?
 

6days

New member
You mean like the system that is actually functioning in all species right now (natural selection)? Or how the cells of vertebrates intentionally (and randomly) mutate their own DNA to generate variation in antibodies and then select the best ones?

Would you agree we have an awesome Creator who designed a program allowing organisms to survive in various environments.*
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Would you agree we have an awesome Creator who designed a program allowing organisms to survive in various environments.*

I would, but that is a statement purely of religious belief, not of science.

We can suggest much better places to find broad categories of evidence...starting with the Word.

Which broad categories of evidence has the Word given us?
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Would you agree we have an awesome Creator who designed a program allowing organisms to survive in various environments.*
The "program" called evolution, yeah.

It is the answer to the problem of a finite genome. Mutation and selection gives a finite genome infinite possibilities. Stripe (and you apparently) want God to have pre-designed every possibility into every organism (so it sounds) but reality is far more amazing than that. Why can't you accept that?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yup. I have loads. Where's yours?
For the notion that RNA recoding evolved? We will see exactly no evidence for that, since it is not available. And I am not under the gun here; I presented the challenge.


Spoiler
362621.image0.jpg

Comparative anatomy of the bones in the front limbs of humans, cats, whales, and bats.

[Credit: Ill
Credit: Illustration by Kathryn Born, M.A
Comparative anatomy of the bones in the front limbs of humans, cats, whales, and bats.]
Nice cartoon.

And the list could go on almost forever.
You will go on forever before you can respond rationally to the challenge.

Irony meter got pegged again. Where is your evidence for your assertion that RNA editing *couldn't* have evolved?
My reasoning has already been presented. Try reading. :thumb:
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I would, but that is a statement purely of religious belief, not of science.
Hi, Cruciform. :wave:

The question is: Is it true? Only men who want to dodge the issues compartmentalize as you have here.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The "program" called evolution, yeah.

It is the answer to the problem of a finite genome. Mutation and selection gives a finite genome infinite possibilities. Stripe (and you apparently) want God to have pre-designed every possibility into every organism (so it sounds) but reality is far more amazing than that. Why can't you accept that?

Evidence, remember?

We have an organism that recodes its RNA. The challenge you face is to provide evidence that this ability arose by random mutations and natural selection.

However, given that it is nigh on impossible that any evidence might remain, we will accept a reasonable explanation. Unfortunately for your side, though, explanations aren't evidence, which leaves our side in the advantage, as there is extant evidence on the side of design.
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How did you subject the Creator to scientific analysis, and what were the results?

Quit spouting nonsense. The question is: Is it true?

Tell us what you believe and why you think it is true. Quit compartmentalizing. :up:
 

Mocking You

New member
Stripe (mostly) said:
Meanwhile, RNA recoding is still a necessarily purposed attribute that the squid possesses, proving problematic to the idea that the ability arose through random mutations and natural selection.

Random mutations and natural selection could never produce a system so reliant on intent and purpose.

Random mutations and natural selection could never produce a system so reliant on intent and purpose.

It is insane to insist that the RNA arose by random mutation and natural selection.

I am saying random mutations and natural selection cannot provide a pathway to a process that relies on design and intent.

Don't have a dog in this hunt, but what we have here is an appeal to ignorance and begging the question, i.e. "RNA is coded information and since all codes are created by a conscious mind, and there is no natural process that creates coded information, therefore the ability of squid to recode its own RNA is evidence of a Creator." It's just sloppy argumentation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top