News:

Look, I haven't mentioned Zeus, Buddah, or some religion.

Main Menu

The origin of DNA?

Started by Johnny5, March 19, 2007, 06:48:39 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Johnny5

If I may ask, how does the atheist (or naturalist) explain the origin of DNA?  We know that it is impossible for the first living cell to have formed without it (via the extensive work done by Dr. Dean Kenyon).

Anyway, if someone could help me out here, it would be much appreciated.

Thanks.  :)

Tom62

#1
Why should an atheist been able to explain the origin of DNA? Do you assume that all atheists are cosmologists and have an answer for all scientific questions that bother christians (because these questions interfere with their christian worldviews)?

Does this thread ends up in another clash between creationists and atheists? If that is the case then I'm out of here, because I've already heard the arguments already hundred times before on this and other forums.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

Eclecticsaturn

#2
Ill help you by simply going to Google and typeing origins of dna and clinking on the first link:
DNA, Design and the Origin of Life by Charles B. Thaxton, Ph.D.. there you go. some reading material.  :)

SteveS

#3
Johnny5,

I was unfamiliar with Dr. Dean Kenyon, so I did a brief search and found him to be an "Intelligent Design" advocate.  Keep this in mind for my question an the end of my post.

Quote from: "Johnny5"We know that it is impossible for the first living cell to have formed without it (via the extensive work done by Dr. Dean Kenyon).
I believe this point to be seriously under question.  I think that there is no consensus whatsoever that DNA is required to have a living cell, in fact quite the opposite.  As far as I can tell, people have been proposing theories of living cells using RNA instead of DNA at least since 1992, and since this field is not my speciality (lol, I'm a software guy), it may be even earlier.

Anyway, I found an article a few months ago that went into these sorts of origin of life issues that I thought was really good.  Here's a link:

http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2004/articles_2004_Before_DNA.html

Quote from: "Johnny5"If I may ask, how does the atheist (or naturalist) explain the origin of DNA?
As far as I can tell, right now there is not a clear cut answer to how DNA developed.  Although it seems very likely that living cells came into being before (and without) DNA.

If the fact that DNA origin is not currently explained bothers you, and if you feel that Dr. Dean Kenyon (an I.D. advocate) somehow offers a plausible explanation, please answer me how an I.D. theorist explains the following questions:

1) Who or what is the "Intelligent Designer"?

2) If the answer to question #1 is not "unknown", then please explain what evidence exists to support the answer.

3) Through what physical mechanism does the designer affect it's design?  In other words, how did the designer create DNA?  What I'm getting at here is that even though we don't have a complete workable "origin of life" theory yet, we've uncovered some very specific mechanisms (self replicating RNA, bubbling clay).  What mechanisms have the I.D. theorists discovered that support an active designer?

P.S.

Quote from: "Tom62"If that is the case then I'm out of here, because I've already heard the arguments already hundred times before on this and other forums.
Heh, certainly don't blame you.  However, after discussing this subject with the Jehovah's Witnesses, I find that the lumps I've acquired on my skull still allow my hat to fit.  I'm up for a few more head banging sessions.

donkeyhoty

#4
Quote from: "Johnny5"We know that it is impossible for the first living cell to have formed without it (via the extensive work done by Dr. Dean Kenyon)
Um no, "we" don't know that and neither do scientists and most don't even propse that statement.  There are several theories about how the first "cell" formed, but "living molecules" developed before the first cells, and had nothing to do with god, an intelligent design, or DNA.

SteveS' post elucidates the RNA world hypothesis, others you should look up are the iron-sulfur world theory, autocatalysis, and the Miller-Urey experiments.

However, no one knows exactly how the first cells formed, and anyone that says they are exactly "right" is a jackass.  And that goes for anything, if the explanation for a hypotesis is, "God made it so", it's a lie.
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

Johnny5

#5
I'm certainly not here to debate...but I should clear one thing up:

Dean Kenyon was not an intelligent design guy when he began his research.  He initially proposed that amino acids could self-assemble into the proteins that form living cells due to the gravitation attraction between the amino acids.  He even wrote a book called "Biochemical Predestination" to explain his findings.  (It actually became a very popular book!)

After a few more years of researching the subject, Kenyon stated, "After further research we realized that amino acids do not have the ability to arrange themselves into any meaningful sequences apart from DNA".

All this to say that Kenyon was actually more of a naturalist when he began his scientific work.  (I didn't even know that he was promoting intelligent design these days.  Thanks for the info).    :O)

SteveS

#6
Quote from: "Johnny5"(I didn't even know that he was promoting intelligent design these days. Thanks for the info).
As I said, I had never heard of him.  I ran a google query on "Dean Kenyon".  The first hit is a wiki page, the first line of which is,
QuoteDean H. Kenyon is Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University and author of a controversial textbook on intelligent design.
Also of interest is
QuoteKenyon's views changed around 1976 after exposure to the work of young-earth creationists.
Dude, he's been doing this for 31 years.  "These days", lol !!!

The second google hit is "A Scopes Trial in Reverse", and the 3rd is "Discovery Institute - Dean Kenyon".

So, it wasn't too hard to figure out.

I understand that Dean Kenyon came to this conclusion, so did Michael Behe, and he's also a scientist.  The problem is that the origin of life is yet to be completely explained.  Unless I'm wrong, only the I.D. people are claiming to actually know the solution.

Honestly, I'm sorry you are not here to debate.  I'd have liked to have known the I.D. answers for my questions.  They seem to me to be serious, and deeply rooted, holes for the theory to fill.

Squid

#7
There's still many unanswered questions regarding that question.  The research is an interdisplinary field and as far as fields of research go, it's a very young one.

However, research into RNA has aided in answering many questions and support for one of the leading hypotheses - the RNA world hypothesis.

SteveS

#8
Hey, I just noticed something,

Quote from: "eclecticsaturn"Ill help you by simply going to Google and typeing origins of dna and clinking on the first link:
DNA, Design and the Origin of Life by Charles B. Thaxton, Ph.D. . there you go. some reading material.
This article is actually an Intelligent Design argument, although I don't think that was your intention eclecticsaturn.  Anyway, since I read through it, I'd like to point out what I perceive as a hole in it's logic.  Bear with me and read the following excerpt,

QuoteThe conclusion drawn from the application of information theory to biology is there exists a structural identity between the DNA code and a written language. H.P. Yockey notes in the Journal of Theoretical Biology:

    It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.{7}

This development is highly significant for the modern origin of life discussion. Molecular biology has now uncovered an analogy between DNA and written human languages. It is more than an analogy, in fact: in terms of structure, the two are "mathematically identical." In the case of written messages, we have uniform experience that they have an intelligent cause. What is uniform experience? It simply means that people everywhere observe a certain type of event always in association with a certain type of cause. When we find evidence that a similar event happened in the past, it is reasonable to infer it had a similar cause. As I shall argue, based on uniform experience there is good reason to accept an intelligent cause for the origin of life as well.

I find this "uniform experience" argument can be turned against the idea of god as creator.  First, consider that in the past humans have felt there were supernatural causes for all sorts of things.  We invented ocean gods, sky gods, fire gods, moon gods, sun gods, etc.  We felt gods controlled sickness, death, warfare, crop growth, rainfall, etc.  But, science has shown that all of these things have been explained naturally.  Granted, there are some things that have yet to be explained, but never once has a supernatural explanation panned out.  Therefore, it is our "uniform experience" that there is no supernatural cause for anything.  And, as Dr. Thaxton points out, this "uniform experience" makes it reasonable for us to infer that no remaining unexplained events are caused by supernatural agents.

Eh?

I just thought it was funny to turn this back on itself.  Actually I think the entire argument is weak, trying to prove the nature of reality from "uniform experience" without discovering causality.  Alleged alien abductees all share "uniform experience", what does that tell us?  Diddly-squat.  Well, maybe it proves "uniform insanity"  :borg:  

I'm not even touching the "DNA codes are mathematically equivalent to language" postulation at the current time, although I smell something very rotten lurking in that equation.

Whitney

#9
I'm not a scientist...so my answer is "don't know"  Try reading Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker...he talks about how he thinks RNA existed before DNA and it is written mostly in laymen terms so us non-scientists can understand what he was talking about.

Squid

#10
I could have given a better and more thorough answer and directly addressed the question but it would consume a lot of time to fully explain it based on current knowledge and I still have a PowerPoint for my Tourette's seminar to finish....hmmm, probably should be working on it now...

MrE2Me

#11
I think Dawkins might have touched on it in The Selfish Gene, as well.
[size=92]I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts[/size]