dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/22/85)
>> [Mike Johnston] >> Why would you define someone who comes up with another origins theory a >> non-scientist. If science decides to base line everything it currently >> accepts and define anything new as non-science then I think we've just >> heard the death knell for true science. > [Keith Doyle] > I would agree on your last sentence. However, science does not reject > new ideas and theories. However, scientists expect new ideas to have > certain characteristics that make them worthy of adoption. Science generally > does not support several conflicting theories at the same time. This is not true. Comment has been made a number of times in this newsgroup (by evolutionists) about dissent and controversy making for interesting and healthy scientific endeavor. One thinks, for instance, of the concept of multiple working hypotheses. If they are not conflicting in some sense, there would appear to be little point in calling this a method of "multiple" hypotheses. And if they are not each supported in some sense, they wouldn't be up for consideration. > Creation however, suggests little, > if anything that helps us move forward. Creation for example, would > indicate that it is impossible to generate new forms of life via > experimenting with DNA. Evolution makes no such claim, and may actually > be of service in decomposing more exactly what effects the DNA protiens > have on species etc. I doubt that most, or even much, research done today is motivated either explicitly or implicitly by a desire to create life. Nor is that motivation necessary in order to produce worthwhile research. For example, the following concerns work done in connection with the elucidation of the structure of the TMV protein. It is a virtual certainly that at least one of the authors harbors no desire to create life: Duane T Gish, L K Ramachandram, W M Stanley, "Studies on the amino acid sequence of tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) protein. I. Fractionation of products of tryptic hydrolysis by countercurrent distribution." Archives of Biochemistry, 78(2), December 1958, 433-450. Yet this was useful research. By the way, what is a "DNA protein"? > I'd like to take an example issue with the creationist 'special processes > which are not now operating in the natural universe'. This is how the > creationists purport to explain the creation of the universe, and of all > the animal and human 'kinds'. It seems to me that abiogenesis scenarios suffer from a similar problem: the natural laws were supposed to be the same, but the events that occurred were unique and unrepeatable. (That is, historically unrepeatable. One may still hope to simulate the conditions thought to prevail on the early earth and produce results similar to those thought to occur then. It is more difficult to conceive how one might simulate creation.) -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (05/24/85)
> > It seems to me that abiogenesis scenarios suffer from a similar > problem: the natural laws were supposed to be the same, but the events > that occurred were unique and unrepeatable. (That is, historically > unrepeatable. One may still hope to simulate the conditions thought to > prevail on the early earth and produce results similar to those thought > to occur then. It is more difficult to conceive how one might simulate > creation.) > | > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- > | I don't see how you can equate the two. In one case, we are being asked to accept the idea that whatever happened is unknowable in principle. In the other case we are being asked to believe that whatever happened conformed to laws that are discoverable to this day. In principle we can hope to construct a detailed model of how life originated on the Earth that is completely consistent with the present rules by which the universe operates. In fact, there is a considerable body of research aimed at just this goal. It may be true that we can never be absolutely sure that we know what happened, but the same comment could be applied to my whereabouts yesterday. After all, my family and I have only our imperfect memories to go on. Maybe we were all brainwashed. :-) "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/31/85)
>>[Keith Doyle] >>I would agree on your last sentence. However, science does not reject >>new ideas and theories. However, scientists expect new ideas to have >>certain characteristics that make them worthy of adoption. Science generally >>does not support several conflicting theories at the same time. >This is not true. Comment has been made a number of times in this >newsgroup (by evolutionists) about dissent and controversy making for >interesting and healthy scientific endeavor. One thinks, for instance, >of the concept of multiple working hypotheses. If they are not >conflicting in some sense, there would appear to be little point in >calling this a method of "multiple" hypotheses. And if they are not >each supported in some sense, they wouldn't be up for consideration. What I was getting at, (and I could be wrong) is that science usually requires that new theories that profess to supplant previous theories, must better explain the facts than previous theories, and via Occams razor, should simplify or unify the explanation of these facts in some manner. >> Creation however, suggests little, >> if anything that helps us move forward. Creation for example, would >> indicate that it is impossible to generate new forms of life via >> experimenting with DNA. Evolution makes no such claim, and may actually >> be of service in decomposing more exactly what effects the DNA protiens >> have on species etc. > >I doubt that most, or even much, research done today is motivated >either explicitly or implicitly by a desire to create life. Nor is Certainly some of what I have heard of DNA research is in creation of new life forms that can 1) manufacture organic materials (usually for medical use) or 2) metabolize certain materials such as the organism that can break down oil slicks on water that is used for oil spill cleanups. >that motivation necessary in order to produce worthwhile research. For >example, the following concerns work done in connection with the >elucidation of the structure of the TMV protein. It is a virtual >certainly that at least one of the authors harbors no desire to >create life: > > Duane T Gish, L K Ramachandram, W M Stanley, "Studies on the amino acid > sequence of tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) protein. I. Fractionation of > products of tryptic hydrolysis by countercurrent distribution." > Archives of Biochemistry, 78(2), December 1958, 433-450. > >Yet this was useful research. I'm not saying that the ONLY use of DNA research is investigation of new life forms, just that evolution does not consider it impossible. >By the way, what is a "DNA protein"? I think that the subgroups of amino acids which are the building blocks of DNA are considered 'proteins', though I'm sure I could stand some more detailed enlightenment on this subject. At work, my only ready reference is the dictionary, (which is the main reason I am many times lacking in references, they're not always at hand, a situation I hope to change once I get a modem at home). At any rate, one of the definitions of 'amino acid' is: a compound of the form NH2CHRCOOH, found as essential components of the protein molecule. And 'protein' is defined as: any of a group of complex nitrogenous organic compounds of high molecular weight that contain amino acids as their basic structural units and that occur in all living matter and are essential for the growth and repair of animal tissue. As you probably have surmised, I am not a biochemist. I get the distinct feeling that this definition of 'protein' in the dictionary leaves something to be desired. Actually, I'd love to hear of some good references on DNA, DNA research, and the comparison of DNA of differing organisms. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (06/13/85)
> >By the way, what is a "DNA protein"? > > I think that the subgroups of amino acids which are the building blocks of DNA are considered 'proteins', though I'm sure I could stand some more detailed > enlightenment on this subject. At work, my only ready reference is the > > Keith Doyle > # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd Huh? Now wait a minute here. If we're going to talk about DNA and RNA and protein we're all going to have to speak the same language or the discussion degenerates to babble. The building blocks of DNA are deoxyribonucleotides. DNA means deoxyribonucleic acid. Each building block consists of a five carbon sugar molecule(ribose)which is ring shaped. This is attached at the first carbon to a purine or pyrimidine base and at the last carbon to a phosphate group. DNA is made up of two strands, each of which is made up of deoxyribonucleotides(see above) which are attached to each other by sugar-phosphate bonds. The identity of the base of each nucleotide is what gives the base its identity. The base identities are what is referred to as "DNA sequence". The possible bases are adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine(A,G,C and T). Since an A on one strand always pairs with a T on the opposite (complementary) strand, and a G on one strand always pairs with a C on the complementary strand, the INFORMATION encoded in the DNA can be propagated: ie: each strand of DNA can serve as a template for the synthesis of a complementary strand the information in that DNA can be propagated as an organism grows (each cell gets a copy of all the information) and the organism's descendants each get a copy of the information(NO NITPICKING, I'M TRYING TO KEEP THIS SIMPLE). The information on some of the DNA can specify the structure of proteins. In order for this to happen an RNA (ribonucleic acid) copy of the DNA sequence must be made. This is very similar to new DNA synthesis, with the exception that only part of one strand of the DNA is copied. The information is still in essentially the same form as it was in the DNA: a linear sequence with a four letter alphabet. To turn this information into protein the 4 letter alphabet must be translated to the 20 letter alphabet of AMINO ACIDS that are the building blocks of protein. In addition the protein must fold into the proper 3 dimensional form required for "activity". Proteins DO things. They are enzymes (catalysts), hormones(messengers), recognition (binding) sites, structures within and around the cell, etc. The proper sequence of amino acids must be synthesized for each protein in a cell to function. The way the 4 letter code is translated to a 20 letter code is through "triplets": From a given start site on an RNA which the cell machinery recognizes three bases at a time (three letter words in a four letter alphabet) are read to specify one amino acid. Since there are 64 combinations of three it's easy to see how a four letter code can specify a sequence in 20 letter code. This is already too long and I have to go back to work, but much more basic information and PICTURES (which make things much clearer) are available in : BIOCHEMISTRY by Lehninger - Highly reccomended as the most self explanatory undergraduate biochemistry text - any library should have this one. or BIOCHEMISTRY by Lubert Stryer - I haven't read this one but it has excellent pictures of molecules and structures. -- Michael Lonetto PHRI NYC (allegra!phri!lonetto) "Some win, Some lose, Some refuse to play"