The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Disprove Intelligent Design to me
Bionic Monkey
Registered User, ClubPA regular
Registered User, ClubPA regular
Okay, not really. But I'm studying cellular biology right now before going into A&P, and the kind of stuff that goes on inside of a cell is just fucking mind boggling to me. Especially the transcription and translation and replication of DNA to RNA, codons, and any of the other billion goddamn things that are going on inside of the eukaryotic cell.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't keep metaphorically smacking into the irreducible complexity argument. Intellectually though, I know this is bullshit. I'd turn to my professor for more in depth answers, but truthfully, neither of us have the time, and it's just not the goal of the class.
So basically, where can I learn about some theories on how the earliest unicellular organisms managed reproduction. Because, at the very least, I figure cells had to have some method of reproducing the phospholipid bilayer before they could begin reproduction.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't keep metaphorically smacking into the irreducible complexity argument. Intellectually though, I know this is bullshit. I'd turn to my professor for more in depth answers, but truthfully, neither of us have the time, and it's just not the goal of the class.
So basically, where can I learn about some theories on how the earliest unicellular organisms managed reproduction. Because, at the very least, I figure cells had to have some method of reproducing the phospholipid bilayer before they could begin reproduction.
Bionic Monkey on
0
Posts
I'd recommend the book Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA by William Dembski and Michael Ruse. It covers most of the major ID arguments (most of which are easy to attack and next to impossible to disprove, though, being the argument from ignorance fallacy), but it focuses on irreducible complexity, which is the one that actually says something and sounds like one that you're actually interested in. It has citations for several other more formal publications, but intimately covers how a number of "irreducible" structures like the Krebs cycle and bacterial flagellum can be reduced into trivial and functionally beneficial intermediates.
If I remember right, it also references a study that found most unicellular organisms could replace their catalase genes from scratch in a few hundred generations if one was removed. If you can track down that one or some good peer review, that would also be a good read. Should be understandable with some cellular biology already under your belt.
I think you're probably getting confused trying to think of the cell as the start point. There was probably a very complex chemical world, long before they decided to organise into lipid bound cells.
If you want the step by steps it was probably something more along the lines of (googleRNA world hypothesis for more info)
RNA monomers form due to the early conditions.
RNA monomers are catalysed into oligomers by clays (see montmorillonite).
RNA oligomers form at much higher concentrations within enclosed containers (either clay bubbles, ice crystals or some other channel.
RNA oligomers start self catalysing (see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm)
Self catalysis brings about Ribozymes with different functions that aid replication. E.g. producing lipids that form rafts for RNA to stick together on. Lipids also spontaniously form bilayers and RNA can make pores in the membrane to control coming and goings into the clay/ice. (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n6/full/ncomms1076.html)
Lipid spontaniously form vesicles carrying RNA genomes. These occasionally bump into others, sometimes they bounce off, but other times the membranes fuse. When too many membranes fuse the bubble becomes unstable and breaks apart into smaller bubbles carrying different combinations of RNA genomes. Some are more successful than others.
As the genomes get more complicated the idea of a cell, a self contained unit with control over it's membrane budding, fusing etc starts to build up. The more stable DNA replaces RNA. More organic molecules are used, proteins start being made. etc
Now, the steps between these points are huge. But as we gain more knowledge hopefully we'll be able to isolate more points, or come up with new ideas about different things that may have happened. If we travel to some of the more distance places in our solar system we may find places that still exist in an early stage of abiogenesis.
Or you know, God did it.
http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything/dp/0767908171
I'm a fairly religious person and I've never felt any real need to disprove the idea of creation in general based on all I've learned so far. I don't know how far along you are in your course work, but your basic reproduction questions do pretty much get answered. It's all theory, of course, but they're good ones.
If you want a textbook and are going pretty far along with cell bio, Molecular Biology of the Cell is an awesome textbook and probably worth it even if you just have the interest. I bought a copy long before I needed one, and it's great.
It's impossible to "prove" that ID didn't happen, in the same way that it's impossible to prove that God (or a wizard) didn't create the universe last Tuesday. It's only possible to show that it didn't need to happen in order to explain what we have observed.
The Talk Origins website has some good stuff on ID with plenty of further reading.
The gist of it is that ID is just disguised creationism, and has manifestly failed to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Specifically that every single example of irreducible complexity has been shown to be eminently reducible. Whilst it's always possible that we will one day discover some irreducible example, that day has not yet occurred.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Oh, I know that's exactly my hangup. I'm fully aware I'm looking at the modern eukaryotic cell, and it's the product of 3.5 billions years of evolution.
But with a fully developed organism, I can look at say, an eye (another ID proponent's favorite), and I can envision a natural development from a photosensitive patch of skin up to the modern eye.
This is purely a result of my own ignorance, and I'm just learning this new field of science, of which I was relatively unaware before hand. I knew about nuclei, DNA, and something called mitochondria before, but everything else is completely new. I'm sure there are answers to my questions; they're just not readily apparent to me, and as I said, not really the point of the class either. The subject is just interesting enough to me, that I'd like to engage in extracurricular reading on the subject.
Unfortunately, I'm not a biology major. The class is actually a pre-req for Anatomy & Physiology, which is itself a pre-req for the EMS Paramedic program. So this class is about as far as I'll be able to pursue in a structured environment.
I loved that show even though I only understood half of it.
Bother me on steam: kabbypan
The moment a particular molecule gains the tendency to create copies of itself is the moment you have the basis of DNA. The fact that it leads to our specific form of life is not important since only our ability to contemplate our beginnings makes it seem impossible to have happened any other way.
Ad to reproduction, remember that even asexual reproduction can result in change over time, given mutation. When all life was was a strand of proto RNA, this would be particularly true.
Secret Satan