In arguing with Intelligent Design (set of arguments which assert that empirical evidence supports the conclusion that life on Earth was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents [1]) the discussions usually degenerate into anti-evolutionary attacks. This is mostly because Intelligent Design, as much as they would like you to believe, is not science. Therefore, when you simply apply the scientific method to the theory, it falls apart.
One of the assumptions that I hear when speaking to (usually pedestrian) Intelligent Design proponents is in regards to DNA & RNA.
DNA is found only in organisms. The DNA found in the cellular genome contains more information than in all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. ID predicts that DNA, a major building block of complex organisms, can only be created by an intelligent agent or by code preprogrammed by an intelligent agent. Furthermore, some of the building blocks for these nucleic acids are very unstable in nature. For example, Miller found that ribose, which is essential for both DNA and RNA, has a half life (t½) of only 44 years at pH 7.0 (neutral) and 0 °C. It’s even worse at high temperatures t½ = 73 minutes at pH 7.0 and 100 °C (the latter evidence is given for the benefit of heat-vent enthusiasts). This is no time at all when we view life as having formed over billions of years.
Thus, DNA must be designed.
Of course, what they’re assuming is that DNA or RNA were the first genetic materials. Miller (as used above) himself suggested that a precursor might be the much more stable peptide nucleic acids (PNAs). [Nelson, et al.,2000]
A pre-RNA world in which the backbone of the first genetic material would have been different from the ribose phosphate seems more likely, but the nature of this backbone is unknown. One proposal offers peptide nucleic acids (PNA) as a possible precursor to RNA because PNA binds DNA and forms double and triple helical structures that are related to the Watson-Crick helix.
The simplicity of the components of PNA suggests that prebiotic syntheses might be feasible. We therefore examined a number of prebiotic syntheses, including electric discharges and NH4CN polymerizations for ethylenediamine (ED) and AEG, as well as the adenine and guanine-N9-acetic acids and the cytosine and uracil-N1-acetic acids. We show here that the components of PNA are synthesized under potentially prebiotic conditions. This finding makes a plausible case that PNA might have been the first genetic material.
The PNAs are known to be able to act as templates for RNA synthesis. [Bohler, et al., 1995, Schmidt, et al., 1997]
PNA and PNA-like oligomers are attractive models for informational polymers simpler than the standard nucleic acids. In this paper we have shown that information can be transferred from PNA to RNA. In our previous paper we demonstrated information transfer from DNA to PNA. Together these results support the idea that transitions between different `genetic materials’, for example between PNA GC heteropolymers and complementary RNA co-polymers, could occur with conservation of the encoded information.
I’m still waiting for the actual “facts” about Intelligent Design to surface. They keep drilling about how they are all there. Well? Someone please let me know. Making anti-evolutionary statements isn’t going to help prove your theory.
5 Responses to “RNA, DNA and Intelligent Design”rss
X-ray, on May 12th, 2005, said:
that’s your opinion. ID is a theory. evolution is a THEORY (yes it is). they can be wrong or right.
Travis, on May 12th, 2005, said:
Sorry friend, ID is creationism — invoking the supernatural to explain (without any effect) natural phenomenon. It’s not a scientific theory. There’s a huge difference.
With science, every hypothesis is testable and falsifiable. I’m still waiting for a testable and falsifiable hypothesis for Intelligent Design. Perhaps you’d like to present one right now? You would be the first.
You can guesstimate all day but that’s not a scientific theory, sorry.
Dan, on January 27th, 2006, said:
Travis…. he said it’s a theory, not a scientific one……
how many time have evolutionists been wrong?
example thow whole reason that that exolution is being taught in schools is because evolutionists couldn’t tell the different between a pigs tooth and a humans
the fact is that evolution is as faith based as ID
and we can all argue who is right and who is wrong till our faces are blue
but untill you can show me someone who has seen animals evolve into something drifferent i’ll stick with ID thank you
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V3/3evlch30.htm
Max Exter, on January 27th, 2006, said:
ID *is* a threory… at least in Kansas, where the definition of science allows this. For this reason, future innovations such as faster than light travel will originate in that state, which is the only one that can legally violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Brendan, on January 27th, 2006, said:
Please define the word “supernatural”. See, I like to define “natural” as things that exist, and “supernatural” as things that don’t exist. And by that definition, when you write ID off as pandering to the “supernatural”, you’re making a statement about what exists and what doesn’t.
This statement generally asserts that since there is no proof for a designer, effectively no designer exists. Of course, this is the “scientific method” - a watered down Kantian approach to exploring the world which would allow a blind man to dispute the existence of colors because he has not the faculty to see them.
One obvious and ancient allegory for this scenario is that of Plato’s cave. It’s quite obvious that (in reality) humanity has a very limited perception of the world. And I’d simply make this case: God doesn’t reveal himself to everyone. There is no way a person can come to the knowledge of God without God’s direct revelation. It’s equivalent to being freed from the cave wall - when you communicate with people who only know the cave, you can’t give them meaningful information about what is outside it. And frankly, I don’t expect them to believe in God; but I do expect them to see the logical impossibility in attempting to prove a universal negative.
Oh, one more thing: Please test the following statement using the scientific method, and tell me its validity:
We can only prove those things that we can test with the scientific method.
The demand for scientific inquiry can’t be upheld by scientific inquiry, and therefore demanding the scientific method as the source of proof also countermands its necessit, by appealing to an unproveable standard… just like an intelligent designer.
Commenting
You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>Your nasty comment spam will be blocked by Akismet.