Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jj · 02-10-2002, 04:57 PM

Check out this article:

<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0209-01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0209-01.htm</a>

Don't blame me, I didn't write it.

Those of you wondering where I stepped in this can go to <a href="http://www.AudioAsylum.com/forums/outside/messages/71909.html" target="_blank">http://www.AudioAsylum.com/forums/outside/messages/71909.html</a>

and follow the gentleman's postings down that particular bulletin board.

For that matter, you could check out some of the anti-evolution <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> verbiage there, along with some of my less tolerant replies.

hezekiah jones · 02-10-2002, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jj:
Check out this article:

<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0209-01.htm" target="_blank">The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering</a>

I'm glad you posted this. I read this article in Harper's last month. I'm very interested to see some comments about it from the folks here.

tronvillain · 02-10-2002, 05:48 PM

On first glance I can't say I'm especially impressed, but I'll keep reading.

tronvillain · 02-10-2002, 06:38 PM

I think this paragraph is informative:

Quote:

Last February, Crick's gamble suffered a spectacular loss. In the journals Nature and Science, and at joint press conferences and television appearances, the two genome research teams reported their results. The major result was "unexpected." Instead of the 100,000 or more genes predicted by the estimated number of human proteins, the gene count was only about 30,000. By this measure, people are only about as gene-rich as a mustardlike weed (which has 26,000 genes) and about twice as genetically endowed as a fruit fly or a primitive worm - hardly an adequate basis for distinguishing among "life as a fly, a carrot, or a man." In fact, an inattentive reader of genomic CDs might easily mistake Walter Gilbert for a mouse, 99 percent of whose genes have human counterparts.

He seems to simply be assuming that humans are vastly more complex than other species, and that we don't have enough genes to explain this complexity. As far as I can tell, the problem is a figment of his imagination - humans aren't really any more complex than a mouse, and are arguably less complex than many other species.

While the overall tone of the article irritates me, he has quite a few good points:

Quote:

Because of their commitment to an obsolete theory, most molecular biologists operate under the assumption that DNA is the secret of life, whereas the careful observation of the hierarchy of living processes strongly suggests that it is the other way around: DNA did not create life; life created DNA. When life was first formed on the earth, proteins must have appeared before DNA because, unlike DNA, proteins have the catalytic ability to generate the chemical energy needed to assemble small ambient molecules into larger ones such as DNA. DNA is a mechanism created by the cell. Early life survived because it grew, building up its characteristic array of complex molecules. It must have been a sloppy kind of growth; what was newly made did not exactly replicate what was already there. But once produced by the primitive cell, DNA could become a stable place to store structural information about he cell's chaotic chemistry, something like the minutes taken by a secretary at a noisy committee meeting.

Personally, I think it more likely that nucleic acids arose as parasites, some of which eventually became symbiotes.

jj · 02-10-2002, 06:57 PM

Well, Tron, my own impression is that most evolutionary biologists agree somewhat with you, they think that life came first, maybe RNA second, and DNA later, with life creating the DNA.

I've not heard much comment on the idea of it being a parasite.

As you may have gathered, I wasn't exactly enraptured with the article either, it struck me as an example of the left attacking what the right usually tries to destroy.

It's a bad sign, I think that both "sides" are resolutately against science nowdays.

tronvillain · 02-10-2002, 08:08 PM

Actually, I don't know why I said "likely" - I just think it's an interesting possibility.

02-10-2002, 04:57 PM	#1
jj Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Redmond, Wa Posts: 937	And from the Other side of the Tracks... Check out this article: <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0209-01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0209-01.htm</a> Don't blame me, I didn't write it. Those of you wondering where I stepped in this can go to <a href="http://www.AudioAsylum.com/forums/outside/messages/71909.html" target="_blank">http://www.AudioAsylum.com/forums/outside/messages/71909.html</a> and follow the gentleman's postings down that particular bulletin board. For that matter, you could check out some of the anti-evolution <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> verbiage there, along with some of my less tolerant replies.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-10-2002, 05:48 PM	#3
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	On first glance I can't say I'm especially impressed, but I'll keep reading.

02-10-2002, 06:57 PM	#5
jj Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Redmond, Wa Posts: 937	Well, Tron, my own impression is that most evolutionary biologists agree somewhat with you, they think that life came first, maybe RNA second, and DNA later, with life creating the DNA. I've not heard much comment on the idea of it being a parasite. As you may have gathered, I wasn't exactly enraptured with the article either, it struck me as an example of the left attacking what the right usually tries to destroy. It's a bad sign, I think that both "sides" are resolutately against science nowdays.

02-10-2002, 08:08 PM	#6
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Actually, I don't know why I said "likely" - I just think it's an interesting possibility.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.