Re: paleonet A few questions from a biology student

[<pblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

These are not really the sort of things that palaeontologists would be familiar
with.  It would be best to take it to the talk,origins newsgroup where there are
people familar with biochemistry.  However, I will give it a go.

1) A partial answer to this question would be that modern single celled animals
are not the same as the ones that were around 3.8 billion years ago.  The
earliest procells would have been much simpler than modern bacteria.  To talk
about a modern biochemical pathways as if they were the original way things were
done is a false arguement.

Also, to point at something that is complex and ask "how could this possibly
come about!?!?!" is the classical Arguement from Incredulity.  It is the perfect
example that creationism is anti-science.  Real science looks at a complex
situation and then tries to understand it.  Creationists only try to find
complex situations so they can point at it and hope the audience will chorous
"Praise God!!!!"  They do not want an explanation.  The discovery of a complex
situation, not an understanding of it, is the aim of creationism.  Also, it is
worth pointing out that creationists often rely on the scientific literature
produced by real scientists to find their examples since creationists are
usually not interested in doing research themselves.

You should try talk.origins or a biochemist for a response to your exact
example.

2) It is a lie that all mutations are fatal.  Every human has about 30 mutations
that their parents do not have.  Mutations with positive effects have been
observed in nature and the lab.  One bacteria developed an enzyme (entirely by
random mutation) that allows it to digest Nylon thus opening up a whole new
feeding ground for it.  AIDS is such a difficult disease to fight because it has
such a high mutation rate that not long after a new medication is trialed it
develops immunity to it.

3) The two examples of the virus and the bacteria show that random mutation
combined with natural selection can add new genetic information.

Regards
Paul Blake






Please respond to paleonet@nhm.ac.uk

To:   Paleonet <paleonet@ucmp1.berkeley.edu>
cc:    (bcc: Paul Blake/DME)

Subject:  paleonet A few questions from a biology student




Dear Paleonetters,
These few questions came to me out of the blue from a biology student in
Turkey. I thought the paleonet might be a good forum to formulate
answers to him.
J. Verniers





Dear VERNIERS,

I am a student in the field of biology in Turkey. In our college, we have
debates with creationists and there are some points put forth by creationists
that I could not find sufficient information to answer explicitly. So I am
kindly asking you to refer to your in-depth knowledge of science to guide me
answer the below mentioned questions brought up by creationists.


1.   A living cell is the most complicated biological structure on earth.
Formation of even one of the thousand components of the organisation within the
cell by coincidences is impossible. The system that aims to distribute the
proteins to sub-cell divisions is an example. It has been discovered that the
head section of the proteins that would go to the golgi body and endoplasmic
reticulum after being synthesized contains a special amino acid sequence called
"signal sequence". When proteins are synthesized, a complex molecular structure
called the Signal Recognition Particle (SRP) is integrated into the signal
sequence. As a result of this, the protein synthesis stops temporarily. During
this pause of the protein synthesis, SRP is connected to the SRP receptor on the
cell membrane ensures the continuance of the protein synthesis and allows the
entrance of the protein to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). As the protein
proceeds into ER, the signal sequence is cut off. This is only an insignificant
part of the entire operations. Is the random formation of such a complex system
possible? Let's assume that all the molecules mentioned here are formed
randomly. ( they say this is also impossible) How can it be possible that this
extremely complex organisation among molecules is formed on it's own?
2.   All the observed mutations either kill or harm living organisms. For
example, countless experiments have been conducted on fruit flies (drosophila)
until now and countless mutations have been applied on fruit flies over
generations. However, none of them resulted in a man-made evolution. "Monster
flies" formed by geneticists could not survive out of the bottle that they had
been nurtured. They either died, became disabled or infertile. Legs emerged from
their head. Besides, unlike those random mutations in nature, these were
conscious and purposeful. But despite this, it has been impossible to form even
one single enzyme. Therefore, could the complex body and organs of living
organisms be formed as an outcome of mutation-like 

ôaccidents

ö ? How can we
explain that mutations can do all these?
3.   As a result of mutations, particles forming the genetic information break
off, are destructed or moved to different parts of DNA. However, mutations can
not contribute the living organisms with a new organ or new characteristics. But
it can result in abnormalities such as the emergence of legs from the back or
the emergence of the ear from the stomach... Has it ever been observed that
mutations have increasing effects over genetic information of living organisms?


I thank you in advance for your valuable comments,

Yours faithfully,

Asli Menekse
menekse1_asli@yahoo.com