Reflectorites
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:47:43 -0800, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
>SJ>PS: I have been utterly blown away in my Biology classes over last two
>>weeks by the *fantastic* molecular machinery of the cell, e.g. ATP
>>synthase's proton pump motor.
Please note my spelling mistake corrected.
CL>The argument from personal incredulity will never mean anything
>in science.
Who is arguing "from personal incredulity"? If Cliff or anyone else can
plausibly explain fully naturalistically the origins of the "molecular
machinery of the cell," including "ATP synthase's proton pump motor," then
I will accept it. But I will not be intimidated by materialist-naturalist
slogans like "argument from personal incredulity"which have the effect of
closing down minds so that the materialist-naturalist position can never be
threatened, no matter what the evidence actually points to.
Indeed, the boot is on the other foot. It is the *non*-theists who find the
idea of an Intelligent Designer "incredible":
"...the theory of evolution...a theory universally accepted not because it can
be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only
alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." (Watson D.M.S.,
"Adaptation," Nature, Vol. 124, 1929, p.233, in Bird W.R., "The Origin of
Species Revisited," 1991, Vol. II, p.172).
But to help Cliff (or anyone else) out to provide a fully naturalistic
explanation, here are two web sites with details and pictures of the ATP
synthase molecular machine:
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm/atpmechanism.htm and
http://www.nobel.se/announcement-97/chemistry97.html.
Here briefly is what they say about it. The second one first: the Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences' 1997 Nobel Prize in Chemistry citation:
"ATP synthase - an exceptional molecular machine ... Boyer has called
ATP synthase a molecular machine. It may be compared to a water-driven
hammer minting coins. The Fo part is the wheel, the flow of protons is the
waterfall and the structural changes in F1 lead to three coins in the ATP
currency being minted for each turn of the wheel.... Na+, K+-ATPase, the
first molecular pump to be discovered... Following the discovery of Na+,
K+-ATPase other ion pumps have been discovered with similar structures
and functions."
Next, the article "More about the ATP Synthase Molecule: ATP
Mechanisms Revealed By Sean Henahan":
"...New X-ray crystallographic studies have revealed the working of
adenosine triphosphate synthase, the basis of energy transport in all living
organisms. ..."It's one of the most complex molecules ever revealed, almost
six times larger than the blood molecule hemoglobin," says Pedersen. It's
also, the researchers agree, one of the tiniest and most powerful motors
ever identified. "
Note that this complex nanomachine is fundamental to the production of
cellular energy in *all* living things. So it could not arise by natural
selection among living organisms because it is required to be already
present in all living organisms.
[...]
>SJ>If Darwinists cannot demonstrate how this absolutely *fundamental*
>>molecular machinery which *all* known life needs to have each and every
>>component working together as a total, integrated system, then their
>>theory *has* absolutely broken down. Darwinists can of course invent
>>imaginary `just-so' stories to explain just about anything (and its opposite)
>>but I think even their imagination would fail here! Darwinism, as a general
>>theory, is therefore either falsified or unfalsifiable.
CL>Darwin's rigorous anti-saltationism is simply wrong, and has been protested
>by many, beginning with his friend T.H.Huxley. So pure gradualism is rather
>a straw man. If Stephen can convince people that evolution in general stands
>or falls with pure gradualism, and if he can convince himself that this is a
>valid argument, then I guess he's making progress.
Despite all the hand-waving, neither Huxley or Gould has ever explained
how complex biological organs could be built by saltation. I quoted Gould's
sotto voce admission that: "I know of no scientific mechanism other than
natural selection with the proven power to build structures of such
eminently workable design." (Gould S.J., "Darwinian Fundamentalism",
New York Review of Books, June 12, 1997.
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?19970612 34F@p3)
Darwin simply thought far longer and harder about this problem than
Huxley.
Darwin realised what Huxley and his latter day disciples like Gould have
never seriously considered, that the saltational origin of a complex organ
would be indistinguishable from a miracle:
"The idea of continuity in nature occurs in many places in the history of
human thought. Natura non facit saltum-nature makes no jumps-was a
guiding motto for generations of evolutionists and protoevolutionists. But
Darwin encountered it in a sharp and interesting form, posed as an
alternative of terrible import: nature makes no jumps, but God does.
Therefore, if we want to know whether something that interests us is of
natural origin or supernatural, we must ask: did it arise gradually out of
that which came before, or suddenly without any evident natural cause?"
(Gruber H.E., "Darwin on Man," 1974, p.125)
CL>The symbiotic theory of the origin of cells has been around a while now.
>Cells are ecosystems that became genomically integrated (except for the
>complication of maternal mitochondrial DNA). If this basically simple
>mechanistic theory is rejected out of hand as objectionably imaginary,
>there must be prejudice involved.
No. Cliff simply misunderstands the problem. The "fantastic molecular
machinery of the cell" that I am referring to is found in *both* prokaryotes
and eukaryotes, and therefore in *all* living things:
"FIGURE 9.14 - ATP synthase, a molecular machine. This protein
complex, which uses the energy of an H+ gradient to drive ATP synthesis,
resides in mitochondrial and chloroplast membranes and in the plasma
membranes of prokaryotes." (Campbell N.A., Reece J.B. & Mitchell L.G.,
"Biology," 1999, p.159)
"More than a dozen enzymes and other proteins participate in DNA
replication. Much more is known about how this "replication machine"
works in bacteria than in eukaryotes. However, most of the process seems
to be fundamentally similar for prokaryotes and eukaryotes. In this section
we take a closer look at the basic steps." (Campbell, et. al., 1999, p.286)
So whether the endosymbiotic theory for the origin of eukaryotes from
prokaryotes is true or not is therefore *irrelevant* to my argument.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Although a biologist, I must confess that I do not understand how life
came about. Of course, it depends on the definition of life. To me,
autoreplication of a macromolecule does not yet represent life. Even a viral
particle is not a life organism, it only can participate in life processes when
it succeeds in becoming part of a living host cell. Therefore, I consider that
life only starts at the level of a functional cell. The most primitive cells may
require at least several hundred different specific biological
macromolecules. How such already quite complex structures may have
come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of
a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this
problem." (Arber, Werner [Professor of Microbiology at the University of
Basel, Switzerland, shared Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine in 1978.],
"The Existence of a Creator Represents a Satisfactory Solution," in
Margenau H. & Varghese R.A., eds., "Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists
Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe Life, and Homo
Sapiens," [1992], Open Court: La Salle IL., 1993, Second Printing, pp.142-
143)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 19 2000 - 16:12:05 EST