How can it be an explanation if it can’t actually explain anything?
4 Likes
It can’t, of course.
It is a bald assertion, not an explanation.
A bald assertion can be true – take “a nuclear fission plant produces electric power” as an example – they simply do not explain how things are true – like how a nuclear fission plant produces electric power. As such, even if true, they have negligible value.
1 Like
That it would become inefficient and begin to run incongruent with other cellular processes that are synchronized via the energy state of the cell and the entire translation process would breakdown?
1 Like
Thanks for replying! Let’s dig in.
But the reaction still occurs, correct?
[This is what one misses when seeing enzymes as magical.]
The synchronization you hypothesize could only be relevant to modern life, correct?
[This is another major blind spot that evolution deniers have. Even if you don’t think it happened, the early stages of abiogenesis wouldn’t need to work well, as there was no competition with other living things.]
Back to modern life–it’s just a hypothesis, so its prediction needn’t be stated as a question. Please don’t be so shy! It is better to not take possession of the hypothesis, though.
So what happens when translation is inhibited? Isn’t that by which tetracycline, streptomycin, gentamicin, and spectinomycin (and a few others) KILL bacteria and save millions of human lives?
Now what’s the prediction of this hypothesis, as in what will occur in the absence of one of the aminoacyl tRNA synthetases? Scientific predictions must be stated as what one will directly observe, with no subjective criteria allowing wiggle room.
1 Like
Which is also why evolution deniers’ claims that abiogenesis should still be happening today are laughable.
4 Likes
Well, it still could be happening all the time, but is undetectable because it is immediately crushed by modern life.
Well, no. Without the catalyst then the system itself would not exist. There would be no organism. There would be no cell where protein synthesis was taking place.
2 Likes
Actually, yes. It still occurs, just not as rapidly.
Catalysts only speed up reactions that would happen anyway. They don’t cause different ones.
That’s what ‘catalyst’ means.
Without the catalyst the system would still exist, it would just work slower. There would be an organism, but a less efficient one. There would be a cell, where protein synthesis would take place at a much slower rate.
1 Like
You’re getting ahead of yourself. That question was about the reaction, not the system. Your black/white answer indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of catalysis. I would reiterate that you’ll learn more if you don’t state hypotheses as facts. Or at least ask questions, as you did at the beginning of this topic.
Great. So on to the hypothesis of synchronization, the absence of even one of the aminoacyl tRNA synthetases should cause us to observe what at the cellular and organismal levels?
theaz101 has been completely consistent in his statement for the last 4 weeks. You and Mercer are pretending as if he is being irrational simply because he pointed out that translation requires a protein catalyst and that he considers this be evidence of the Creation.
The behavior of you and your fellow evolutionist has been, quite frankly, a rather bizarre thing to behold.
It’s YOUR goalpost, Rumraket! You think Creationists are just being mean by pointing them out to you? It’s like you evolutionists are acting like babies right now. What is up with you guys?
I entered my post twice the other day. The second time, I neglected to bold the text that I was taking about. Here’s what I meant to bold.
Here are a few reasons why I infer a creator.
The peptidyl transferase (PT) is included in rRNA (ribosomal RNA). rRNA is transcribed from DNA by proteins.
rRNA is cut into several separate RNA strands by proteins.
The separate RNA are processed post-transcription by proteins. This includes transforming some of the bases into non-standard bases.
There are no existing organisms that are RNA based.
(In steps 2 - 4, RNA might be involved as well, but that doesn’t change the point, because that RNA is transcribed from DNA by proteins)Some questions for you:
Is there any evidence that “raw” (not transcribed from DNA and processed by protein) PT ever existed?
Is there any evidence that “raw” PT is capable of functioning like modern PT does?
Is there any evidence that modern PT is capable of translating mRNA into a protein by itself?.
I explained that “raw” means unprocessed by proteins, which included some of the bases being transformed into non-standard bases.
If I was talking about the PT without the proteins of the ribosome, I would have used a word like “naked”, not “raw”.
You didn’t respond to this, but my statement is in the context of RNA World, not the modern ribosome.
Then the researchers would have (should have) worded their statement differently.
You’re putting words in their mouths that they didn’t say.
If you are simply saying that they are wrong to say “that can be synthesized” instead of “that we have seen”, then that’s a different issue.
There’s nothing to say “nuh-un” to. You haven’t explained how replication would work in your story. Without a template to mutate (and accumulate mutations), you can’t invoke selection.
Now who’s playing the “nuh-uh” card?
It really doesn’t matter if the ribosome moves over the mRNA, or the mRNA is moved through the ribosome. The mRNA is read by the translation system in either case. It is read in the sense that a tape drive reads a computer tape. And the tape drive doesn’t move across the tape, the tape is pulled through the read/write heads of the drive.
Here’s a site that states the obvious.
A ribosome is the cellular machinery responsible for making proteins. There are many ribosomes in each cell, each made up of two subunits. These two subunits lock around the messenger RNA and then travel along the length of the messenger RNA molecule reading each three-letter codon.
Don’t your arms get tired from all of that hand-waving?
I guess I was confused by your use of the word “codon”. The codons are in the mRNA. The tRNA has the anti-codon.
Since when do you have to know why a designer made certain choices in order to know that something is designed?
Do we know why the builders of Stonehenge made the choices that they did?
This prediction is a straightworward non-sequitur. Even if there was no naturalistic origin of life, it doesn’t follow that there is no natural process by which life could originate. Strictly speaking it remains a logical possibility that God wanted to create life on Earth, but that he also wanted there to be some natural process by which it could originate on it’s own if the right conditions were satisfied (perhaps here, or on other planets too).
I’m just saying that we’ve only scratched the surface in understanding how life operates.
Tell it to join the club.
6 Likes
The classic ID bait & switch. When we consider Stonehenge and conclude that it is designed, the implicit assumption is that is was designed by humans. This is because we known humans are capable of building structures, and more importantly, we already know humans exist. No one is looking at Stonehenge to conclude that humans exist; that is assumed.
It’s the same with the conclusion that an Intelligent Designer exists; it is the implicit assumption of the person making the claim. There is never any suggestion of a way such claims might be falsified.
AND again with Information and Design. Someone thinks something looks designed, and they don’t try to understand how it might have come about, they just conclude Design because it conforms to their existing beliefs. These arguments rarely use the formal mathematical definitions, instead relying on the common usage. Those ID arguments using the formal definitions go badly because Math is unforgiving to nonsense.
Some people have scratched deeper than others, and they will continue to do so. More generally, science has been in the business of scratching deeper for 500+ years, and supernatural cause has never been the correct answer. To be fair, we shouldn’t expect faith to be any sort of scientific answer, that’s not what faith is for.
4 Likes
It’s all a red herring. I have pointed out that he has objectively misrepresented the prediction of the RNA World hypothesis. I also pointed out that this misrepresentation came after refusing my offer to send him the published prediction. It’s been reiterated with no acknowledgment.
I’ve also pointed out that neither of you have a basic understanding of what catalysis will and won’t do. This is a foundation of the false claims both of you have made.
Just trying to teach denialists how the scientific method works. What’s up with you not following up your hypothesis, falsely presented as a fact?
1 Like
No, he hasn’t. Stop carrying water for him. You can’t just ignore his second quote which I responded to. Let’s go over it point by point:
- [If you want to say that peptidyl transferase]
What is peptidyl transferase? The active site of the ribosome. A ribozyme with no proteins. So that must be what he is referring to, right? Not the entire translation system. Just peptidyl transferase, the active site of the ribosome. His words, not mine.
Some historical context: I can also here add that this specific question of whether ribosomal RNA can catalyze this reaction has a bit of a history, as previous attempts to find some sort of core ribosomal RNA molecule that can perform this reaction had proven unfruitful.
Now, importantly, ID-proponents/creationists have previously made a point of pointing out that such experiments had hitherto failed to find that the ribozyme at the core of the ribosome could perform this reaction (obviously seeking to cast doubt on the soundness of the RNA world hypothesis).
And yet the RNA world hypothesis basically predicted that this should be possible. So that’s why this finding is significant.
- [can catalyze the bond between amino acids]
What does it mean to catalyze the formation of the bond between amino acids? That is to catalyze the formation of peptide bonds. To speed up the formation of a peptide by the ribozyme linking amino acids together.
- [without the help of proteins]
What does it mean to say without the help of proteins? It means proteins do not assist in speeding up the catalytic reaction catalyzed by peptidyl transferase referred to in point 2 above. Proteins should not aid in speeding up the formation of peptide bonds that are catalyzed by peptidyl transferase.
- [you also have to show that it can perform that catalytic action]
What does it mean to show that it can perform that catalytic action? It being the peptidyl transferase, and that catalytic action being the formation of peptide bonds, it means to show that peptidyl transferase can speed up the formation of peptide bonds.
- [without first being modified by proteins].
What does it mean to say it is first being modified by proteins? It means that peptidyl transferase has either been chemically altered by a protein enzyme, or otherwise bound by a protein and formed an intermolecular complex with one or more proteins.
There just isn’t another way to read this, sorry.
Since, in the paper I cited in direct response to the above quote, peptidyl transferase (the ribozyme at the core of the ribosome, the active site) is not assisted by proteins, has not been chemically altered by a protein, and is not complexing with one or more proteins, and does in fact speed up the formation of peptide bonds, I have in fact correctly described what the paper says.
When I respond to him I am objecting here to his portrayal of my earlier post as misrepresenting the paper’s contents and somehow not meeting the challenge that his above quote put forward.
You seem to have not understood this context of my posts. Can you now at least see what I was saying?
It’s difficult to take this accusation seriously. I don’t think you’ve followed the context very well at all.
Nope. It’s his. I am not pretending to describe the entire context of the RNA world hypothesis. I am describing a scenario for how translation evolved. That implies replication occured, but how RNA is replicated is actually irrelevant for this scenario. Since we have evidence that supports the inference that the translation system evolved in some sort of RNA world, that logically entials that RNA was replicated in some way.
Given that we can reasonably infer that RNA replication did happen based on this evidence, while an interesting question in it’s own right how that happened (many potential candidate explanations have been offered in the literature, one of which is a system of ribozymes catalyzes replication), it’s exact mechanism is not crucial for assessing the logical coherency of this model.
Being mean? Who said anything about being mean? You seem to be halluscinating reactions here. No I think creationists are having a difficult time with following the logic of making a historical inference to the best explanation based on evidence.
Perhaps most succinctly, creationists seem to have a difficult time with the idea that we can know stuff about the past without having seen it occur. And that it is possible some times to know THAT something happened, without knowing EVERYTHING about HOW it happened.
I don’t care about any of that. It’s really your second quote that matters here.
But I did respond to that when you first wrote it. Directly. I cited the paper and explained how it meets that exact challenge.
I’m certain they would agree that they could have phrased it better to avoid confusing people like you.
I’m sorry but you’ve got an issue with your logic here. I don’t need to explain how replication happens for my “story” to be logical. To give an analogy, I don’t need to give an account of the inner workings of a combustion engine to give a plausible, evidence-based account of what route he took when the man drove his car to his place of work (many possible cars could have taken him there, with many different engines). Having evidence for the RNA world is a bit like having a poor resolution photo taken by a traffic cam of the man’s car at some junction. We know he traveled by car, we’re not sure exactly what car it was.
That RNA was replicated is implied by the evidence for the RNA world. The details, while interesting (and a subject of ongoing research), are not important here. It can basically be taken as a given for the scenario in question. I’m not pretending to offer a complete RNA world scenario here, merely explain how translation begins (how the evolution of translation begins and gradually complexifies).
Yes it does. It directly matters when you ask stupid questions such as this:
When you say “codon”, you’re not suggesting that the PT fragments are somehow reading a strand of mRNA, are you?
It’s clear you don’t understand what PT refers to, or what really happens to mRNA in the modern ribosome. And therefore you don’t understand the significance of the PT fragments in the paper I linked, or how they fit into a scenario for the origin of translation.
That’s a superficial cartoon article written for laypeople. An actual ribosome is of course not a sphere. There are no details about what really occurs in the ribosome, what it’s different parts are really like (no active site or it’s position in the ribosome is depicted), what they are called, how they are located in relation to each other or anything.
I’m sorry but you can’t meaningfully debate the origin of translation with an understanding of the system taken from cartoons and dumbed-down articles written for laypeople. The real details become important. Without them you ask senseless and confused questions thinking you have alighted upon a problem with the scenarion I have proposed, when in fact it just reveals you don’t understand what actually occurs during translation in any extant organism.
That’s not a meaningful response to what I wrote. Read for comprehension. Try again.
Thanks for letting me know you’ve got this far. But I must repeat the question. “Why would I need to show that?”
You don’t. But you’re confusing an explanation for that which was designed with a conclusion that it was designed.
But you haven’t even got that far. You don’t know that it was designed. You do not have a valid inference that leads to that conclusion. Much less an explanation for why it was designed to be the way it is.
I could just turn this around on you and say we know that the translation system evolved. Do we really need to know how? Well I’d like to. Until details are provided I can’t claim to have explained the origin of the translation system merely by uttering the sentence “The translation system evolved” any more than I have explained the origin of the translation system merely by uttering the sentence “The translation system was designed.” Neither sentence really explains anything about the translation system.
If we don’t know why they made the choices we did, then we do in fact lack an explanation for the details of stonehenge. In that respect merely knowing THAT stonehenge was designed therefore fails to EXPLAIN anything about stonehenge. Why are the stones placed in that arrangement, at that location? An explanation for stonehenge would require explaining why they did the things they did. I’m not satisifed merely knowing THAT stonehenge was designed, any more than I’m satisifed knowing THAT the translation system evolved in the RNA world. I’d like to know how. In the case of design, I’d want actual explanations for the details of the system. The choices made that would putatively explain why the data is the way it is.
I take it this is some sort of concession of my last two points?
Look at this nonsense. It’s like you guys are telling fishing stories.
“Oh boy, I caught a cell last night that synthesized proteins without Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetase! You should have seen that sucker. It had no enzymes!”
No, it really didn’t, basically, mechanistically, or otherwise. Scientific hypotheses generally predict what should be observed, not what should be possible. You might want to read Wally Gilbert’s Nature blurb from 1986, that doesn’t mention anything close to that possibility.
The hypothesis predicted that RNA would be present at the enzymatic core (peptidyl transferase) of the ribosome, because while any intelligent designer would have yanked it out and replaced it with protein, evolution could not.
It did not predict that no ribosomal protein would intrude into the PT active site. It did not predict that the naked, modern rRNA would have PT activity by itself, because RNA is so labile. The hypothesis is simply that RNA did everything before protein and DNA came along, so the prediction is that RNAs will simply be left behind at the center of these essential functions.
The observations that 1) there is not a speck of protein in the active site and that 2) the rRNA has some activity just strengthen the hypothesis. They were always possible, but never predicted.
No, it’s significant because it goes so far beyond the empirical predictions of the RNA World hypothesis. So it’s silly to argue based on that goalpost move.
The real question for @theaz101 and @VladtheDestroyer to ask themselves is, why on (heaven or) Earth would any omniscient, omnipotent being choose RNA, when it is catalytically inferior to protein? After the RNA World, evolution would be stuck with it because is constrained in ways that no intelligent designer could ever be.
But “that exact challenge” is an enormous goalpost move from any empirical prediction of the RNA World hypothesis.
The rest of your points are really good ones.
No, just rejecting yours.
"There would be no organism. There would be no cell"
1 Like