[asa] Re: All powerful mutations, fasifiable?

What do you mean by 'proven' prebiotic pathways? Surely you must
realize that science does not deal in proof. When it comes to pre-DNA,
however science has proposed (testable) pathways, including an RNA
world, all the way back to template assisted replication based on clay
minerals.

Most of these scenarios do NOT rely on an all powerful mutation but
rather on known and plausible chemical pathways. In other words, known
chemistry. Nope, we are not looking to mutation and selection because
everything else has failed. It's the opposite, everything else has
failed because the paradigm is so compelling and well supported by the
available data and evidence.
As for pre-DNA, the data and pathways are far more tentative, so if
you want to use ignorance to imply ID, feel free to do so, I believe
that most scientists would prefer a "we don't know (yet)".

I hope that you realize that providing strawmen calculations for the
origin of the first replicating DNA organism, lacks in scientific
relevance. It's like Dembski, meaningless protein probability
calculations. Garbage in, Garbage out.

On 9/25/07, rpaulmason@juno.com <rpaulmason@juno.com> wrote:
> Dear PvM - you write:
> Surely you do not think that science had not
> realized that a de novo out of nowhere 200 amino-acid gene was
> improbable?
>
> I respond:
> Thank you - we are on the same page. It's impossible to get a 200 amino acid coding gene (600 base pairs) and even worse to get 200 of them for a first minimal cell that can reproduce and respirate.
>
> The key now is to admit that there are not any proven workable prebiotic paths to the first cell. Copying nonsense over and over or small units does not lead up to a cell or large genes unless the smaller units are "viable". The present hypothesies all have problems and are basically imaginary - relying on "all powerful" mutation and natural selection to fill in the "gaps". Not only for the first cell but the bacterial flagellum and millions of other complex structures.
>
> You write:
> How would one eliminate chance mutations? What do you mean by this?
> How do you eliminate chance mutations as opposed to directed
> mutations? Non-Random mutations? Or how do you eliminate chance and
> regularity as a pathway? Is that not the unenviable task ID has forced
> upon itself?
>
> I ask:
> If mutations and natural selection are not falsifiable - they are not science but metaphysics - just like ID's source? Are we looking to mutation and natural selection because they have eliminated everything else and it's by elimination we have to resort to those processes - sounds like the elimination argument against ID?
>
> Paul
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 25 11:00:37 2007