>Bertvan:
>Can proteins mutate in only certain ways? Are they alive? Do they have a
>choice about how they mutate? (Some limited choice seems to be a property of
>all life.) Does knowing the history of a protein tell you the probability of
>whether it will mutate by chance - or whether it will mutate according to
>some innate plan or design? Does science know the history of many proteins?
>Does Darwinism know any reason why proteins shouldn't mutate according to the
>same, plain, old-fashioned "chance" familiar to the rest of us? Is declaring
>something to be undesigned less ignorant than calling it designed?
I just ran across a webpage that sort of addresses part of this.
http://daphne.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm#top
------------------
Living things on Earth are fundamentally similar in the way
that their basic structures develop and in their chemical
compositions. No matter whether they are simple single celled
protozoa or highly complex organisms with billions of cells,
they all begin as single cells that reproduce themselves by
similar division processes. After a limited life span, they also
all grow old and die.
All living things share the ability to create complex molecules
out of carbon and a few other elements. In fact, 99% of the
proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and other molecules of living
things are made from only 6 of the 92 most common
elements. This is not a mere coincidence.
All plants and animals receive their specific characteristics
from their parents by inheriting particular combinations of
genes. Molecular biologists have discovered that genes are, in
fact, segments of DNA molecules in our cells.
These segments of DNA are chemically coded recipes for
creating proteins by linking together particular amino acids
in specific sequences.
All of the tens of thousands of types of proteins in living
things are made of only 20 kinds of amino acids. Despite the
great diversity of life on our planet, the simple language of the
DNA code is the same for all living things. This is evidence of
the fundamental molecular unity of life.
In addition to molecular similarities, most living things are
alike in that they either get the energy needed for growth,
repair, and reproduction directly from sunlight, by
photosynthesis , or they get it indirectly by consuming
green plants and other organisms that eat plants.
All of these major similarities between living things can be
most logically accounted for by assuming that they either
share a common ancestry or that they came into existence as a
result of similar natural processes. These facts make it
difficult to accept a theory of special and independent
creation of different species.
-----------------
I might add, that it also makes it tough to accept the idea that these
molecules are directing their own evolution, as if some group of
single-celled organisms decided (consensus decision or majority vote?) that
it was their destiny to become a cocker spaniel and so directed their own
evolution though cordate --> protofish --> reptile-->therispid-->mammal
transitionals taking their own sweet time--more than 500 million years--to
do it. And, of course, now that they have achieved cocker spanielness they
are done and will change no more.
Susan
----------
I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced
by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew
why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct
species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and
natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the
laws of ordinary reproduction.
---Charles Darwin
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 10:49:18 EDT