Re: [asa] Amazing Proteins

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
> Hi PvM,
>
>
>
> "As I thought, there is not much here. As to the idea that "evolution
> is a protein dependent phenomenon", I would say that at best we can
> argue that evolution has used quite successfully the nature of
> proteins but one must be careful to distinguish function, which of
> course is an essential part of evolution with 'design', a common
> confusion."
>
>
>
> I think a better way of saying it is that evolution has been quite
> successful because of proteins. After all, there doesn't seem to be much
> evidence that the blind watchmaker can do all that much without the help of
> proteins.

Ah the ever so powerful argument from ignorance.

> "Of course, since evolution uses proteins, proteins appear to be quite
> successful in our world for evolution."

> Do you believe evolution would be just as successful without proteins?

Do you?

> "Lacking any other data points
> it seems a bit early to conclude that proteins are essential for
> evolution."

> I don't argue that proteins are essential for evolution. I am suggesting
> that evolution has been quite successful because of proteins. After all,
> why don't you have other data points to point to?

Because those who make the argument have not provided any additional datasets?

> "At best we can argue that proteins out competed its
> predecessors."

> So why did they out-compete their predecessors?

Why? That suggests too much of a teleology.

> "But as Iain has pointed out claiming that proteins are necessary for
> the success of evolution is like blaming letters for the success of
> Shakespeare or notes for the success of Mozart rather than these being
> given."
>
>
>
> Okay, so I am trying to envision how you can have a Shakespeare without an
> alphabet.

> "Certainly science is well aware of the importance of proteins and
> while some are arguing that proteins could not have evolved, others
> have found, to probably noone's surprise, that proteins may be quite
> accessible to evolutionary processes. Coincidence? Or by 'design'?
> Well, as I stated, evolvability is how evolution 'designs' its own
> processes of variation. Of course, as usual, this does not preclude an
> 'Intelligent Designer'."
>
>
>
> As I stated, evolvability may largely be a protein-dependent reality. After
> all, it failed the hypothetical ribo-organisms.

That is incorrect, evolvability is also an important part of RNA.

> "While I understand your interest in just asking questions, I fail to
> see the relevance of said questions."
>
>
>
> I enjoy questions that probe beyond the surface and like to survey the
> responses to those questions.
>
>
>
> "After all, the puddle also
> questioned why the depression was perfectly shaped to fit it, and
> while pondering the meaning of said coincidence, the puddle slowly
> evaporated."
>
>
>
> I hear the puddle also chuckled when the swimming pool pondered the same
> question.

So how do we determine what is a swimming pool and what is a natural
depression? The problem is that just pondering is not going to take us
anywhere. Why is all life based on proteins? That's an interesting
question but to suggest that this leads one to a conclusion that the
blind watchmaker may not have been successful without proteins is at
best 'begging the question'.
Where would evolution have been without the laws of science... well duh....

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 10 11:48:56 2008