Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bird breathing anatomy breaks dino-to-bird dogma
CMI ^ | June 16, 2009 | Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.

Posted on 06/16/2009 8:39:02 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Do we eat Kentucky Fried Dinosaur? According to the dogma of many evolutionary propagandists for the last decade or so, indeed we do—they believe that birds evolved from the carnivorous dinosaur group known as theropods. Yet there are many problems with this idea. And now, new research into the birds’ lung and leg anatomy provides more strong evidence against it...

(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; belongsinreligion; catholic; christian; creation; creationvoodoo; darwindrones; darwiniacs; evolution; godgunsgutsisaloon; intelligentdesign; jewish; jihad; judaism; magiccreation; magicdust; science; templeofdarwin; timetodumpfr

1 posted on 06/16/2009 8:39:04 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Finny; vladimir998; Coyoteman; allmendream; LeGrande; GunRunner; cacoethes_resipisco; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 06/16/2009 8:39:45 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

So its back to kentucky fried mystery meat?


3 posted on 06/16/2009 8:41:50 PM PDT by chemical_boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the laugh! Another unjustified conclusion at the end of a sensationalized article, typical for creation.com.


4 posted on 06/16/2009 8:44:07 PM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The evidence against evolution just keeps stacking up.


5 posted on 06/16/2009 8:50:34 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


6 posted on 06/16/2009 8:51:38 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
YOu know what really blows my mind? I'll tell ya.... People all over the world read Harry Potter and truly believe in magical powers to manipulate matter, create matter out of this air, etc. But, just tell them G-d did that through creation and they are ready to hang you!
7 posted on 06/16/2009 8:52:17 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blowfish

Let me see if I got this one right

Birds didn’t evolve from theropod Dinosaurs but instead evolved from an earlier ancestor millions of years before, therefore that means the earth is only 6,000 years old

Yeah, makes sense to me


8 posted on 06/16/2009 8:52:41 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chemical_boy; blowfish

9 posted on 06/16/2009 8:53:29 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blowfish

There is nothing wrong with evolution. All species adapt to changing environment.

There is nothing wrong with creationism, because it all had to ‘begin’ somewhere, sometime.

I still don’t see why there is a big argument.


10 posted on 06/16/2009 8:57:30 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Better written than the other articles but still full of lies. Don’t have time to point them all out right now but:

“claimed “feathered dinosaur ancestors” Sinosauropteryx

Sinosauropteryx is classified as a NON-avian feathered dinosaur.

Good try this time.


11 posted on 06/16/2009 8:59:06 PM PDT by ciwwaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: qam1

This apparently passes for science in creation-ville.


12 posted on 06/16/2009 8:59:34 PM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington

That’s because they love the idea of manipulating creation, but they hate the idea of accountability. If it reminds you of the mentality of a 5 year old, well...


13 posted on 06/16/2009 8:59:37 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: qam1
therefore that means the earth is only 6,000 years old

This is true.

You must also realize that God created everything in 6 days.

You take 6 (of God's) days, then multiply it times 6000 years, and you'll get the same kind of time expanse that science claims for the age of the Earth.

14 posted on 06/16/2009 9:01:02 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Absolutely. Read the flaming posts soon to follow. These people would eat garbage if the Pinko Central fax machine told them it was good for the Earth and hurt Republicans...


15 posted on 06/16/2009 9:02:16 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I wonder what grilled Liberal tastes like???


16 posted on 06/16/2009 9:03:15 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ciwwaf
Looks like a chicken to me.


17 posted on 06/16/2009 9:05:08 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I see you are nearing perfection, Bravo.


18 posted on 06/16/2009 9:06:47 PM PDT by going hot (Happiness is a Momma Deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blowfish
This apparently passes for science in creation-ville.

You should see what passes for science at a Global Warming Convention.

19 posted on 06/16/2009 9:08:06 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington
The evidence against evolution just keeps stacking up.

Is it against 'evolution', or against the concept that humans mutated from some lower life form?

20 posted on 06/16/2009 9:14:19 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (The Last Boy Scout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington

“I wonder what grilled Liberal tastes like???”

It tastes like chicken.


21 posted on 06/16/2009 9:14:33 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

Wow! That is really hard to say. While I am usually a firm believer in creationism, I have come to conclude that Obama is truly decended from apes...


22 posted on 06/16/2009 9:16:13 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“Now how did the machines know what Tasty Wheat tasted like, huh? Maybe they got it wrong. Maybe what I think Tasty Wheat tasted like actually tasted like, uh ... oatmeal or tuna fish. That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken for example. Maybe they couldn’t tell what to make chicken taste like which is why chicken tastes like everything!”

Mouse
“The Matrix”


23 posted on 06/16/2009 9:37:00 PM PDT by Bean Counter (Stout Hearts....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Keep your hand out of Tweety’s cage.


24 posted on 06/16/2009 9:56:09 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Anyone who thinks birds didn’t evolve from dinosaurs should spend a little time with one of my two Jardines parrots. They are absolutely T-rexes with feathers. One of them chomped into my bare foot last week, and the ensuing scene put anything from “Jurassic Park” to shame.


25 posted on 06/16/2009 9:58:14 PM PDT by HHFi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
There is nothing wrong with evolution. All species adapt to changing environment.

Except, of course, for the many species that did not adapt...the standard evolutionist line to explain extinction.

And except, of course, for those species that remained unchanged for millions of years since their first fossilized appearance, in spite of enormous changes in their environment. They persisted through their environment; their lack of change -- their stasis -- does not attest to their having "adapted" to their environment.

There is nothing wrong with creationism, because it all had to ‘begin’ somewhere, sometime.

That's true. Hardcore Darwinists, however, will invoke abiogenesis -- life having evolved from non-living matter -- as the only "scientifically acceptable" explanation.

I still don’t see why there is a big argument.

Darwinism was the official creation-myth of the 20th century. The big argument is over whose God is more powerful: God-the-supreme-intellect-and-intelligent-designer vs. Chance-plus-lots-of-time.

Unfortunately for the Darwinists (as has been pointed out to them many times), mere chance -- even when helped along by a mysterious "natural selection" -- cannot create even simple functional arrangements of amino acids to form proteins, let alone functional arrangementsof proteins to form higher-order biological structures -- in a mere 10^17 seconds. The 12 billion years since the putative Big Bang are not enough time for Darwinism ("random mutation + natural selection") to work its magic.

26 posted on 06/16/2009 10:23:00 PM PDT by GoodDay (Palin for POTUS 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

bump


27 posted on 06/17/2009 12:24:25 AM PDT by Dajjal (Obama is an Ericksonian NLP hypnotist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: qam1
The Earth as a collection of rocks is clearly more than 6K years of age. The age of our present biosphere is far less clear and almost certainly closer to biblical estimates than to the estimates needed to support evoloserism. They're finding meat, blood, and soft tissue in dinosaur bones on a regular basis and those 65M year time frames you used to read about are gone with the wind other than in evolosers' minds. That's before you even get to the question of dinosaur images in Amerind petroglyphs of course.


28 posted on 06/17/2009 6:06:47 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GoodDay

So how does this shape up with the prebiotic Earth? On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 1024 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23]), then there are roughly 1 x 1050 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 1031) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).

Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence [14,16]. Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort).

Although I have used the Ghadiri ligase as an example, as I mentioned above the same calculations can be performed for the SunY self replicator, or the Ekland RNA polymerase. I leave this as an exercise for the reader, but the general conclusion (you can make scads of the things in a short time) is the same for these oligonucleotides.

Search spaces, or how many needles in the haystack?
So I’ve shown that generating a given small enzyme is not as mind-bogglingly difficult as creationists (and Fred Hoyle) suggest. Another misunderstanding is that most people feel that the number of enzymes/ribozymes, let alone the ribozymal RNA polymerases or any form of self-replicator, represent a very unlikely configuration and that the chance of a single enzyme/ribozyme forming, let alone a number of them, from random addition of amino acids/nucleotides is very small.

However, an analysis by Ekland suggests that in the sequence space of 220 nucleotide long RNA sequences, a staggering 2.5 x 10112 sequences are efficent ligases [12]. Not bad for a compound previously thought to be only structural. Going back to our primitive ocean of 1 x 1024 litres and assuming a nucleotide concentration of 1 x 10-7 M [23], then there are roughly 1 x 1049 potential nucleotide chains, so that a fair number of efficent RNA ligases (about 1 x 1034) could be produced in a year, let alone a million years. The potential number of RNA polymerases is high also; about 1 in every 1020 sequences is an RNA polymerase [12]. Similar considerations apply for ribosomal acyl transferases (about 1 in every 1015 sequences), and ribozymal nucleotide synthesis [1, 6, 13].

Similarly, of the 1 x 10130 possible 100 unit proteins, 3.8 x 1061 represent cytochrome C alone! [29] There’s lots of functional enyzmes in the peptide/nucleotide search space, so it would seem likely that a functioning ensemble of enzymes could be brewed up in an early Earth’s prebiotic soup.

So, even with more realistic (if somewhat mind beggaring) figures, random assemblage of amino acids into “life-supporting” systems (whether you go for protein enzyme based hypercycles [10], RNA world systems [18], or RNA ribozyme-protein enzyme coevolution [11, 25]) would seem to be entirely feasible, even with pessimistic figures for the original monomer concentrations [23] and synthesis times.


29 posted on 06/17/2009 7:28:13 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep

Oops - apparently the superscripting didn’t transfer. In each mutiplicate “1 X” insert a 10 with the following number actually an exponent. “volume of 1 x 1024 litres” should read “volume of 1 x 10 (to the 1024th power) litres


30 posted on 06/17/2009 7:31:54 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
They're finding meat, blood, and soft tissue in dinosaur bones on a regular basis

Source, please?
31 posted on 06/17/2009 7:45:17 AM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Boxen

Look it up; if you don’t know how to use google yet, the exercise will improve your education.


32 posted on 06/17/2009 8:16:02 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

It is the responsibility of the claimant to back up his or her claims. If you can’t do that, maybe you shouldn’t have made the claim in the first place.


33 posted on 06/17/2009 8:24:58 AM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Boxen

This one has been in the news all over the place for the last three years now. Try google searches on ‘dinosaur’ and ‘soft tissue’.


34 posted on 06/17/2009 9:32:18 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

You could try the same thing. It was determined that the original claims were premature and the organic matter was not original tissue but an algal residue aka slime.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefair/2008/07/study-t-rex-sof.html


35 posted on 06/17/2009 9:45:23 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

And yet, I would hardly call the occurrence of soft tissue in ancient fossils “regular” as per your original claim.

And as the poster above me has pointed out, it may not even be soft tissue that was found, but bacterial remnants.


36 posted on 06/17/2009 10:15:00 AM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep

In the case of the latest ( hadrosaur) investigation, extraordinary care was taken to avoid any claims of contamination. Try doing a few google searches.


37 posted on 06/17/2009 10:52:37 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071203-dino-mummy.html

There was no tissue on this specimen. The confusion lies in the fact that there was mineralization of soft tissues leaving casts and impressions - not original organic material.


38 posted on 06/17/2009 11:24:21 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep
Wrong hadrosaur...
39 posted on 06/17/2009 12:25:10 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

This is not a "godsgravesglyphs" topic, and I did not put that into the keywords. As noted in the earlier topics related to this, here's the Oregon State press release about this:
Discovery raises new doubts about dinosaur-bird links
News and Communication Services
Oregon State University
6-9-09
It's been known for decades that the femur, or thigh bone in birds is largely fixed and makes birds into "knee runners," unlike virtually all other land animals, the OSU experts say. What was just discovered, however, is that it's this fixed position of bird bones and musculature that keeps their air-sac lung from collapsing when the bird inhales. Warm-blooded birds need about 20 times more oxygen than cold-blooded reptiles, and have evolved a unique lung structure that allows for a high rate of gas exchange and high activity level. Their unusual thigh complex is what helps support the lung and prevent its collapse... However, every other animal that has walked on land, the scientists said, has a moveable thigh bone that is involved in their motion -- including humans, elephants, dogs, lizards and -- in the ancient past -- dinosaurs... "For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs..." Ruben said... "But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs," Ruben said... The newest findings, the researchers said, are more consistent with birds having evolved separately from dinosaurs and developing their own unique characteristics, including feathers, wings and a unique lung and locomotion system. There are some similarities between birds and dinosaurs, and it is possible, they said, that birds and dinosaurs may have shared a common ancestor, such as the small, reptilian "thecodonts," which may then have evolved on separate evolutionary paths into birds, crocodiles and dinosaurs. The lung structure and physiology of crocodiles, in fact, is much more similar to dinosaurs than it is to birds... old theories die hard, Ruben said...

40 posted on 06/17/2009 2:49:40 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__Since Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Birds Didn’t Evolve from Dinosaurs
(Evos forced to invent an even older common ancestor!)
CEH | June 9, 2009
Posted on 06/09/2009 5:33:16 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2268390/posts


41 posted on 06/17/2009 2:50:00 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__Since Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
The evidence against evolution just keeps stacking up.

Is it against 'evolution', or against the concept that humans mutated from some lower life form?

That's a very fair question. In fact, there is lots of evidence for evolution, if by "evolution" we simply mean "change over time".

The problem is that the clearest examples of "change over time", i.e., "evolution," are commonplace and are not of the Darwinian sort (meaning, there's no random mutation occurring, with a mysterious and unobserved "natural selection" plucking out a few of the mutants to be lucky survivors). Embryonic development, for example, is clearly "change over time": you start with a single cell, and over time, it changes completely into something else. The process, however, runs according to a code; something much more similar to a computer program than to any random process envisioned by Darwinists.

42 posted on 06/17/2009 10:09:51 PM PDT by GoodDay (Palin for POTUS 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

“So how does this shape up with the prebiotic Earth? On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 1024 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23]), then there are roughly 1 x 1050 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 1031) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).
Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence [14,16]. Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort).
Although I have used the Ghadiri ligase as an example, as I mentioned above the same calculations can be performed for the SunY self replicator, or the Ekland RNA polymerase. I leave this as an exercise for the reader, but the general conclusion (you can make scads of the things in a short time) is the same for these oligonucleotides.
Search spaces, or how many needles in the haystack?
So I’ve shown that generating a given small enzyme is not as mind-bogglingly difficult as creationists (and Fred Hoyle) suggest. Another misunderstanding is that most people feel that the number of enzymes/ribozymes, let alone the ribozymal RNA polymerases or any form of self-replicator, represent a very unlikely configuration and that the chance of a single enzyme/ribozyme forming, let alone a number of them, from random addition of amino acids/nucleotides is very small.
However, an analysis by Ekland suggests that in the sequence space of 220 nucleotide long RNA sequences, a staggering 2.5 x 10112 sequences are efficent ligases [12]. Not bad for a compound previously thought to be only structural. Going back to our primitive ocean of 1 x 1024 litres and assuming a nucleotide concentration of 1 x 10-7 M [23], then there are roughly 1 x 1049 potential nucleotide chains, so that a fair number of efficent RNA ligases (about 1 x 1034) could be produced in a year, let alone a million years. The potential number of RNA polymerases is high also; about 1 in every 1020 sequences is an RNA polymerase [12]. Similar considerations apply for ribosomal acyl transferases (about 1 in every 1015 sequences), and ribozymal nucleotide synthesis [1, 6, 13].
Similarly, of the 1 x 10130 possible 100 unit proteins, 3.8 x 1061 represent cytochrome C alone! [29] There’s lots of functional enyzmes in the peptide/nucleotide search space, so it would seem likely that a functioning ensemble of enzymes could be brewed up in an early Earth’s prebiotic soup.
So, even with more realistic (if somewhat mind beggaring) figures, random assemblage of amino acids into “life-supporting” systems (whether you go for protein enzyme based hypercycles [10], RNA world systems [18], or RNA ribozyme-protein enzyme coevolution [11, 25]) would seem to be entirely feasible, even with pessimistic figures for the original monomer concentrations [23] and synthesis times.”


Oops! I guess you forgot to mention that you were plagiarizing a post from the knee-jerk Darwinist site “Talk Origins.” See above link.

When in doubt, do a data-dump from another site and let the readers sort it out.

I did check out your bio page on FR. I was duly impressed when you correctly added “3” plus “21” to get “24.” That was the only actual calculation you’ve performed so far. The above crap from TalkOrigins is a classic handwaving argument, in which one assumes anything one wants (no experiments allowed, please) and then proceeds NOT to perform any actual calculations. TalkOrigins is famous for that nonsense. I see you’ve copy/pasted their diagram, too, on abiogenesis. Why don’t you just save some time (as well as practice a little bit of that virtue called “intellectual honesty”) and just post the link?

Sort of like this...

http://www.discovery.org/a/2177
Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories
By: Stephen C. Meyer
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington

http://www.discovery.org/a/2184
DNA and the Origin of Life:
Information, Specification, and Explanation
By: Stephen C. Meyer
Darwinism, Design, and Public Education

http://www.discovery.org/a/3209
On the Origins of Life
By: David Berlinski
Commentary
June 14, 2007

Original Article, first published in February, 2006

The Berlinski article (originally published in “Commentary Magazine”) is an excellent overview and critique of abiogenesis theories. The Meyer articles are an excellent overview of Intelligent Design and critique of Darwinism.


43 posted on 06/17/2009 11:20:50 PM PDT by GoodDay (Palin for POTUS 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GoodDay

Thank you for pointing out that I forgot to put in the link at the header like I usually do.

That said, the exercise is statistical not experimental and the math works.


44 posted on 06/18/2009 1:20:29 PM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: blowfish
Proof!
45 posted on 06/18/2009 2:04:26 PM PDT by baclava
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep
Thank you for pointing out that I forgot to put in the link at the header like I usually do.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

However, an analysis by Ekland suggests that in the sequence space of 220 nucleotide long RNA sequences, a staggering 2.5 x 10^112 sequences are efficent ligases [12]. Not bad for a compound previously thought to be only structural. Going back to our primitive ocean of 1 x 10^24 litres and assuming a nucleotide concentration of 1 x 10-7 M [23], then there are roughly 1 x 10^49 potential nucleotide chains, so that a fair number of efficent RNA ligases (about 1 x 10^34) could be produced in a year, let alone a million years. The potential number of RNA polymerases is high also; about 1 in every 10^20 sequences is an RNA polymerase [12]. Similar considerations apply for ribosomal acyl transferases (about 1 in every 10^15 sequences), and ribozymal nucleotide synthesis [1, 6, 13]. Similarly, of the 1 x 10^130 possible 100 unit proteins, 3.8 x 10^61 represent cytochrome C alone! [29] There's lots of functional enyzmes in the peptide/nucleotide search space, so it would seem likely that a functioning ensemble of enzymes could be brewed up in an early Earth's prebiotic soup. So, even with more realistic (if somewhat mind beggaring) figures, random assemblage of amino acids into "life-supporting" systems (whether you go for protein enzyme based hypercycles [10], RNA world systems [18], or RNA ribozyme-protein enzyme coevolution [11, 25]) would seem to be entirely feasible, even with pessimistic figures for the original monomer concentrations [23] and synthesis times.

You mean, like the above copy/paste, which also came from TalkOrigins, and which you also didn't source?

Anyway, like everything on the TalkOrigins site, it's a delicately nuanced combination of fantasy, magic, and Kiplingesque "Just So" storytelling.

"Simple chemicals to polymers" - there you go! That explains everything! All you need are "polymers" and, heigh ho!, life is just around the corner! Alas, not just any polymers will do; not just any sort of bond will do; not just any sort of enantiomer will do (left-handed for everything except nucleotides, which are right-handed). To get from "simple chemicals" to "FUNCTIONAL polymers" you have to add the secret special ingredient that True Believers at TalkOrigins are so adept at assuming when it suits their argument: magic.

Same for "replicating polymers" and "hypercycles."

Now, specifically, which "protobionts" did you have in mind when you drew...I mean copy/pasted/plagiarized...the line-arrow to it? Oh, you mean the HYPOTHETICAL model of a precursor to prokaryotic cells...a model that has never actually been observed in nature, let alone synthesized through intelligent intervention on behalf a researcher? Is that the "protobiont" you mean...the one that's been assumed, surmised, hypothesized, and hypostasized? THAT protobiont? I thought so. Try to be scientific and stick to things that actually exist.

And, Yay! look how easy it is to go from an invented precursor of bacteria to bacteria itself! Why, it's as easy as drawing a line-arrow. EVOLUTION PROVEN! PROBLEM SOLVED!

At least Kipling could write. At least his "Just So" stories have rich characters and interesting plots. The stories you're plagiarizing from TalkOrigins are dry attempts at the Fantasy & Science Fiction genre by people with no talent for writing and no head for science. Their main interest is to propagandize on behalf of "naturalism." They're allowed to do so, of course, but to propagandize on behalf of a worldview (especially one so shallow as naturalism) is not the same thing as pursuing scientific research, or promoting the spirit of scientific inquiry.

46 posted on 06/18/2009 9:58:12 PM PDT by GoodDay (Palin for POTUS 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson