Re: [asa] Amazing Proteins

Hi PvM,

"As I expected, this is far more an issue of metaphysics than science
as science can succesfully deal with the blind watchmaker scenario, a
scenario which you also seem to accept with the addition that the
initial conditions were somehow 'perfect'."

Yes, science does deal successfully with the blind watchmaker scenario, but
just how much of a scenario would there be if proteins did not exist?

[As an aside, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think the initial
conditions were 'perfect,' as I have never claimed this.]

"Of course, I do not really have to show that there are macromolecules
that could do better as I accept that proteins have out performed the
RNA world."

That proteins outperformed the RNA world tells us that evolution works
better with proteins. So we are back again wondering just how effective the
blind watchmaker is without proteins.

"We can all marvel at the level of 'coincidence' but tthat is just a
matter of personal taste as you similarly have no evidence and accept
fully the scientific hypothesis."

But this begs the question. Is it really coincidence?

"Of course there is always a reason to think which is why you present
your hypothetical argument. However, beyond just thought, the concept
of evolvability is one of significant interest and the concept that
evolution can improve its probabilities to succeed, hardly seems
controversial, you even accept the concept of learning. Since
variation has genetic components, evolution can in fact 'tune'
variation to improve evolution's successes."

Indeed. But evolution can do this because it has proteins to work with as
its design material. If we were to strip away proteins from evolution,
perhaps we would likewise strip away evolvability (explaining why the RNA
world never had a chance once proteins appeared).

-MikeGene

----- Original Message -----
From: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
To: "Nucacids" <nucacids@wowway.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Amazing Proteins

> On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
>> Hi PvM,
>
>> "Sure? Well of course not, there is a level of contingency as well. SO
>> we have chance and regularity and known processes. Would I have met my
>> present day wife if I had not decided to take a particular decision.
>> Would I ever have known the difference?"
>
>> Yes, I understand that one can metaphysically reframe things like this.
>> But the ability to reframe does not establish the truth of the reframe.
>> To
>> make this reframe relevant, you need some solid evidence that any type of
>> macromolecule could either substitute for proteins or do a better job.
>> But
>> you have no such evidence, meaning that the reframe is simply a matter of
>> personal taste.
>
> As I expected, this is far more an issue of metaphysics than science
> as science can succesfully deal with the blind watchmaker scenario, a
> scenario which you also seem to accept with the addition that the
> initial conditions were somehow 'perfect'.
> Of course, I do not really have to show that there are macromolecules
> that could do better as I accept that proteins have out performed the
> RNA world.
> We can all marvel at the level of 'coincidence' but tthat is just a
> matter of personal taste as you similarly have no evidence and accept
> fully the scientific hypothesis.
>
>
>> "I think what we need to appreciate is how evolution itself facilitates
>> its own success. It's called evolvability."
>
>> You are appealing to yet another protein-dependent reality. Is there a
>> reason to think evolution facilitates its own success without the
>> tremendous
>> (essential?) helping hand it gets from proteins?
>
> Of course there is always a reason to think which is why you present
> your hypothetical argument. However, beyond just thought, the concept
> of evolvability is one of significant interest and the concept that
> evolution can improve its probabilities to succeed, hardly seems
> controversial, you even accept the concept of learning. Since
> variation has genetic components, evolution can in fact 'tune'
> variation to improve evolution's successes.
> The level of neutrality for instance in the genetic code is one aspect
> which comes to mind.
>
> You are getting closer to addressing my question though.
>
> But you still have not answered by question. How do we turn this into
> a scientifically relevant position? How would ID explain all this? If
> I understand your position correctly you hold that at a particular
> instance in time we face a set of initial conditions that led to
> present day situation. Your argument is that perhaps the initial
> conditions were set up for evolution to be successful? That is an
> interesting idea but unnecessary at best and scientifically irrelevant
> lest we can argue why there is a non natural requirement for the
> initial conditions to have existed.
>
> Looking back it is incredibly unlikely that the rock that rolled down
> the slope ended up where it did and yet it had to end up somewhere. We
> may see a purpose in how the rock ended up exactly where it did but
> this seems not much dissimilar from the puddle of water that marveled
> at how the impression in the ground exactly matched its shape. And
> while it was evaporating it was still pondering the significance of
> this coincidence. My apologies to Douglas Adams.
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.8/1413 - Release Date: 5/3/2008
> 11:22 AM
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 3 23:52:18 2008