Do These New Experiments Reflect The Environment?

A work in progress is what science is which is true, but how far does the speculation go? New Scientist reports that a new experiment indicates that nature can copy DNA without life…Speculation on how this gets accomplished goes like this…

“Inside many undersea hydrothermal vents, magnesium-rich rocks react with sea water. Such reactions create a heat source that could drive miniature convection currents in nearby pores in the rock, claim Christof Mast and Dieter Braun of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany. They propose that such convection could concentrate nucleotides, strands of DNA, and polymerase, providing a setting that would promote replication.”

This is what you call an intelligent design experiment that doesn’t reflect the evolutionary hypothesis in which it’s trying to describe, the experiment was given DNA, DNA polymerase and nucleotides to start out with. Other experiments are at odds. Dr. Jeffrey Bada from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography argues against hydrothermal vents as potential places for life to have self-organize. He states, “…peptide bonds are also rapidly hydrolyzed at elevated temperatures.  The steady-state concentration of peptides under hydrothermal conditions is therefore problematic.”

This experiment also fails to take into account a predicted young sun during an early earth that wasn’t generating enough warmth to keep the ice off the water where life was suppose to have evolved from. Reactions are much slower in cold temps. Also, a replication mechanism is a critical factor for without it, no maintenance, stability, and diversification of its components!

As for another experiment, Craig Venter’s achievement trying to create a synthetic genome was a remarkable feat, but not for creating life. All he did was copied a code, then borrowed existing parts, and depended completely on cell machinery.  Since Darwinian evolution starts with life while not addressing how life got there in the first place, it was assumed that this experiment was part of history on how life arose not present history by man’s tinkering but billions of years ago and giving the credit to chance and time!

Similarities have been used to connect chemicals to humans which is known as common descent. It’s also used in trying to explain how a living cell was created. There is phosphorus in DNA and there is phosphorus in ATP. With this similarity, it was concluded that the earth required phosphorus for life to arise naturally.  The explanation on how phosphorus got into the earth’s atmosphere is vague, full of speculation such as a special delivery from meteorites that reacted to form pyrophosphite under the acidic, volcanic conditions of early Earth.

Evolutionary scientists disagree on which came first, replication or metabolism but one could add energy to that as well. Dynamic interplay from food energy going into ATP production and out into work throughout the day is quite an amazing fact, also a great design created by God!

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Do These New Experiments Reflect The Environment?

  1. Ha. I beat Eelco to it this time. Michael—


    (1) Blog readership numbers in response to Eelco’s February challenge that your readership asymptotically
    approaches zero.

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    Those are the old ones. Then we have the caveman quiz from Olorin’s May 31 comment on Michael’s post of May 29, in which Michael wonders why it took humans so long to invent writing, domesticate horses, invent to wheel, etc, yet Michael himself fails to answer a single question that a person living 5,500 years ago could have answered easily.

  2. It’s hard to know where to begin with this post. Michael seems to have emptiesd the entire slop pail of his ignorance into it. So let’s start with perhaps the most ridiculous howler—

    The explanation on how phosphorus got into the earth’s atmosphere is vague, full of speculation such as a special delivery from meteorites that reacted to form pyrophosphite under the acidic, volcanic conditions of early Earth.

    Wow—phosphorus in the atmosphere? Phosphorus is found in the air only in very small dust particles. Good thing, because large amounts would be toxic.

    On the other hand, phosphorus is found widely in the earth’s crust, in rock formations and ocean sediments. We mine 153,000,000 tons of it every year around the world, from the US to Russia to northern Africa to Malaysia.

    The primary commercial use of phosphorus is agricultural, but there are a couple of very common uses in the household. Michael’s question for the day is, Name one common household product that includes phosphorus.

    .

    Uncritical as usual, Michael has been duped again by his creationist sources as to otherwise well known facts about the Earth.

    Just one more reason that, if a creationist says it’s raining, you should look out the window for yourself.

  3. Let’s see if I got this straight:

    (a) The DNA replication could not have occurred because the temperature was too high. (“peptide bonds are also rapidly hydrolyzed at elevated temperatures.” )

    (b) The DNA replication could not have occurred because the temperature was too low. (“This experiment also fails to take into account a predicted young sun during an early earth that wasn’t generating enough warmth to keep the ice off the water where life was suppose [sic] to have evolved from.”)

    You pays yer money and takes yer choice, Michael. Too high. Too low. Too high. Too low. Too high. Too low.

    .

    And only Michael has the chutzpah to argue that experimental results are mere speculation. (“Speculation on how this gets accomplished goes like this…”)

    New Scientist

    To test this theory, Mast and Braun put these ingredients into tubes 1.5 millimetres long. They used a laser to heat one side of the water and create thermal convection. Sure enough, they found that the DNA doubled every 50 seconds (Physical Review Letters, vol 104, p 188102).

    Michael asserts that “Other experiments are at odds.” However, this is a failure of reading comprehension. If you disagree, Michael, please provide a citation to any actual experiment by Jeffry Bada—or anyone else—that attempts but fails to duplicate Dieter Braun’s result.

    If you’re still with us, you might explain what in the world Craig Venter’s work has to do with Braun’s hypothesis. Non sequitur, anyone?

  4. Similarities have been used to connect chemicals to humans [sic] which is known as common descent.

    Bizarre.. Truly bizarre.

    Here the rest of us thought that common descent was that a single living ancestor gave rise to all organisms now living.

  5. @Upson Downes:
    bugger ! You did beat me to in, indeed.

    The weather is just far too nice around here, at the moment …

  6. Eelco: “The weather is just far too nice around here, at the moment …”

    Here as well. Saturday, we became empty-nesters. Not in the figurative sense—the kids have long gone—but literally. Two months ago, a robin built a nest on the lintel over our front door, and deposited 4 eggs into it. We could observe the proceedings from a window over the lintel. In due course, the eggs hatched into 4 greedy mouths, fed by both mom and dad, seemingly nonstop. In the past few days, a blur of wing flapings began.

    Saturday, as we were leaving for a party, 3 of the fledglings leaped from the nest and dived toward the concrete sidewalk below. They pulled out just in time, and careened off in 3 different dirctions. We haven’t seen them otr the parents since.

    After the 3 had flown the nest, we did find the fourth ball of fluff on the sidewalk, uninjured but not trying to fly. It was pecking at its reflection in the glass outer door. When we returned later that evening, it was gone. Whether the wings began to work, or it became someone’s dinner, we don’t know.

    Now we are empty-nesters once more. Today the detritushas been cleared away, and there are a couple of rubber snakes on the lintel to discourage an encore.

  7. Steve Matheson is a biology professor at Calvin College in Michigan. He has appeared with Stephen Meyer several times on the subject of design in nature. After a session at Biola University on Signature in the Cell, Matheson wrote this open letter to Meyer—

    Dear Steve:

    It was good to meet you last month at Biola. The Q&A period after your presentation was a little too short, but I thought that we identified a couple of areas in which we could “continue to converse.” These might include concepts of explanation, ideas surrounding supernatural action, notions of randomness and divine oversight, or more importantly the ways in which people (especially Christians) go about assessing the explanatory power and success of what we call science.

    Yes, it would be great to follow up on our brief meeting onstage, and to find ourselves in situations in which topics of mutual interest are discussed by knowledgeable and intelligent people (at conferences, for example, or in multidisciplinary working groups). For my part, I’m eager to be involved in such activities, and in the coming years I intend to seek and create opportunities for scholars to consider concepts of biological design in the context of Christian belief.

    Right now, I don’t see how you could be a thoughtful contributor to such an effort. It’s not because you’re stupid, or because you have “bad relationship skills,” and it’s not because you prefer ID-based explanations for biological phenomena. It’s because you seem to have abandoned scholarship and the intellectual community, and instead embraced apologetics and political persuasion. As near as I can tell, you’ve almost completely isolated yourself from science and from scholarship, and this means you have no future as a contributor to the consideration of design in biology.

    The letter continues with four things Matheson thinks that Meyer must do to regain any credibility for his views. You can read the letter here.

  8. A while back, Michael spewed forth a post on why the optimum design of the human eye implied its design. He concentrated on the role of Muller cells in piping light through the retina to the photoreceptors.

    Muller cells aren’t something new, so we wondered what prompted the post at that time. PZ Myers has probably explained it. A “particularly silly” creationist, Jonathon Safarti has recently pounced upon the Muller cells.

    My comment at the time described how these cells are a patch on a poor initial structure, and why cephalopod eyes don’t need them because they have a much better initial configuration. Myers has confirmed that analysis in a post today, “More creationist misconceptions about the eye”

    So Michael apparently got his material from Safarti. Sure would be nice to have an attribution, Michael.

    The principle is called intellectual integrity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s