“Puzzles” for evolutionists– DNA and proteins

25


Discussion by: titania

As I was stumling around the internet the other day, I found this little piece :

13 Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.
(From http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html)

Could any of the learned members of this forum  explain this "paradox"

25 COMMENTS

  1. The key is RNA. RNA is what actually makes proteins. DNA is just a more stable storage mechanism for the information.

    RNA can also catalyze some reactions, so it can do the job of both DNA and proteins, at least to some extent.

    Exactly what steps lead to the current near-universal use of DNA for information storage is certainly not known, but it’s not a paradox. There is, at a minimum, the RNA-only path available. The person who wrote the above is aware of that fact, and tried to counter it by lumping DNA and RNA together as if they were a single inseparable system, but they aren’t. Even today, there are many viruses which don’t use DNA at all.

  2. @OP DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA?

    Neither of them came first! They were both pre-dated by earlier self-replicating systems. In this video a leading genetics expert explains one of the models for the beginning of self-replicating organisms.

    The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.

    ONLY the strawman ignorant trick-question nonsense claims these were features of early life, or that they were “created”. They evolved much later.

    The Origin of Life – Abiogenesis – Dr. Jack Szostak – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

    This has been CONFIRMED in Dr. Jack Szostak’s LAB. 2009 Nobel Laurette in medicine for his work on telomerase.

    It’s been 55 years since the Miller-Urey Experiment, and science has made enormous progress on solving the origin of life. This video summarizes one of the best leading models. Yes there are others. Science may never know exactly how life DID start, but we will know many ways how life COULD start. Don’t be fooled by creationist arguments as even a minimal understanding of biology and chemistry is enough to realize they have no clue what they are talking about.

  3. What paradox?

    This, as usual, is a creationist false dichotomy.

    Well explained by other answers here.

    Watch this attempted trick that is really a false dichotomy followed by a argument from ignorance

    Even if there was not the false dichotomy of the chicken and egg ( DNA and protein ) phony paradox , unexplained and unexplainable by science, to then leap to ” The ONLY explanation is that they were created together,. “, implying magic man, is an argument from ignorance.

    If not X for the explanation then Y is the explanation by default. A common creationist fallacy.

  4. Only religions claim to know everything about everything since bronze age. The truth (if you are interested in the truth) is that nobody knows how life started on earth, and if someone claims to know that, they are probably making stuff up to feel better about it.

    But let’s suppose you need a very complex (therefore improbable) molecule to start life. It cannot have appeared randomly on its own, right ? Like throwing stones in the air that would fall back building whatever cathedral you like, or other similar creationist condescending example. But if you think so, then how should you considerate a thesis that postulates a superior intelligence able to design and create that molecule ? The answer is : more complex, therefore even more improbable.

    That is why creationisms are never acceptable, whatever the science knows or ignores. It’s a thinko. Like a typo, but when you think.

    Example :

    • The eye is to complex ? Can’t have appeared on its own ? Needs an intelligence able to design and create the eye… that appeared on its own.

    • Constants of the universe are fine tuned ? Can’t be random ? Need an intelligence that appeared randomly so fine tuned that it knows how to fine tune those constants.

    Postulating more complexity than you explain is the opposite of an explanation. It is an intellectual regression.

    If you hold some gods dearly, don’t go for improbability.

  5. Hello, Titania. I am at present reading The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, which deals with this question, among others, at length. I strongly recommend it to you. As others here have indicated already, the dilemma you mentioned is purely imaginary, arising from ignorance of the subject-matter. If one wants to learn mathematics, one avails oneself of a competent mathematics tutor or consults books and other media produced by competent mathematicians to impart information about mathematics. Of course I am stating the obvious here, yet the obvious seems to need to be stated. If you wish to learn about evolutionary biology, surely you should avail yourself of a competent biology tutor or consult books and other media produced by competent biologists for this purpose. Reference to ancient, prescientific writings are irrelevant.

  6. As for chickens and eggs, chickens arose at a relatively later evolutionary stage than eggs. Chickens evolved from dinosaurian type ancestors, and those ancestors lay eggs. So eggs came before chickens, though at that earlier time, they weren’t chicken eggs. That leads us onto the question: “Which came first, dinosaurs or eggs?”

    The website in the posting says: “The ONLY explanation is that they were created together. [ chickens and eggs ]“.

    From an evolutionary standpoint, that is quite possibly true, but it contains some assumptions which are not a part of evolutionary theory. Creation was not all-of-a-sudden and by magical supernatural means. And together was not in the same species – poof – ie. it did not arise with chickens; they inherited it from other, much earlier evolutionary goings-on. Some critters evolved the capacity to lay eggs over an evolutionary time scale. So I guess that the critters came first, but by the time egg laying was established, (as we would think of it), the critters weren’t the critters as they were when the evolutionary steps began. So they evolved together – ie. kinda at the same time, but it would’ve been a long time, not – poof – suddenly.

    The production of eggs would have been an evolutionary out-branching from pre-existing ways in which reproduction was ‘achieved’, (by mother nature ! ) It would have begun in simpler organisms than chickens. Corals produce eggs and sperms for example. Corals, chickens, reptiles, amphibians and fish . . . etc. would have inherited the egg method of reproduction, from the ancestors which originally evolved the capability.

    Apply similar thinking to how we arrived at the interdependence of DNA and proteins in heritability processes. Things can have evolved in parallel, and in small increments like a dog chasing its tail, round and round. Or maybe like a tornado developing. Small steps chasing small steps leading to an incredible result – like a very dizzy dog, or a really violent storm, or a complex system of chemical interactions in DNA and its actions in evolution. And don’t forget, evolution is an agent for not only change, but stasis as well, depending on the details.

    And yes, RNA would have been in the mix. But the little quote about DNA, protein, chooks* and googs+ certainly ignores what the theory of evolution has to say.

    {*} = chickens

    {+} = eggs ! ! !

    • In reply to #7 by SurLaffaLot:

      As for chickens and eggs, chickens arose at a relatively later evolutionary stage than eggs. Chickens evolved from dinosaurian type ancestors, and those ancestors lay eggs. So eggs came before chickens, though at that earlier time, they weren’t chicken eggs.

      Actually, this isn’t (likely to be) true. (Given that you start from the question as it is really intended, “Which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?”) Parents give birth to a new species only under very specific conditions. There doesn’t seem to be any reason to suggest that these conditions ever impacted chickens. That means the first chicken was born from a chicken egg that came from a chicken. It’s like Dawkins’ stack of photos analogy.

      The only way to “solve” the dilemma is to very specifically define what a “chicken” is. (For example, is it DNA? Is it specific juvenile or adult characteristics?) Then the chicken vs. egg question is very simple to answer.

  7. Revelation has nothing to do with it. The bible does not even know about molecules much less molecular biology.

    Proteins for the most part are small simple molecules. You can combine them into long strings of RNA (This is this what viruses do). DNA is like RNA version 2. (this is what bacteria, plants and animals do). One of the improvements is a mechanism to correct mistakes after a copy. So proteins came first.

    • In reply to #8 by Roedy:

      Revelation has nothing to do with it. The bible does not even know about molecules much less molecular biology.

      Proteins for the most part are small simple molecules. You can combine them into long strings of RNA (This is this what viruses do). DNA is like RNA version 2. (this is what bacteria,…

      The Bible certainly doesn’t mention molecules, but (perhaps slightly off the main point) I’m not sure about some of the details here. Proteins can be large and complex, with 3-D folding etc. Also, they are made of amino acids that have been strung together, as opposed to RNA molecules which are chains of Ribose sugar (R) and Nucleic Acids (NA).

  8. Thank you titania for this question. Lately, I’m never sure if these topics are from drop and run theists trying to stump the scientists, but I found this question worthwhile. As I have stated in the past, I’m here to learn and today I learned something worthwhile. :)

    • In reply to #9 by QuestioningKat:

      Thank you titania for this question. Lately, I’m never sure if these topics are from drop and run theists trying to stump the scientists, but I found this question worthwhile. As I have stated in the past, I’m here to learn and today I learned something worthwhile. :)

      Troll was obvious troll. Not that it matters.

  9. Ok, well this was great! I mean, a question with an obvious REAL answer (thanks Alan4 et al), and a troll opening OP who ran away. Hey Tatiana, try READING while you are stumbling around the internet…. You could answer this without the “learned” people here, provided you, yourself were open to learning anything other than what you already want to be true.

    BTW, the embedded Revelation 4:11 refers to

    “You are worthy, our Lord and God,
    to receive glory and honor and power,
    for you created all things,
    and by your will they were created
    and have their being.”>>

    So, the person posing this question clearly does not want it answered any way other than the way THEY WANT it. Even the question is questionable!!!

    • In reply to #13 by titania:

      Thanks for the replies. in reflection, this place may have not been the most appropriate place to ask it.

      That depends on if you are looking for competent scientific answers. The people who provided you with the question, clearly have no idea about the biology of early life of genetics.

      Have a look at the link to the video @3 for a good introduction to the subject of abiogenesis.

      People here can give further answers if more questions are asked during discussions.

  10. titianis posted:

    “As I was stumbling [sp] around the internet the other day, I found this little piece :”

    I suspect you will continue to “stumble around” regardless of what I post. Accordingly, I choose not to waste my time on you.

  11. the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper

    even deeper than a very shallow thing?

    The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.

    capital letters? hmm compelling argument. i shall cease forthwith from pointing out any other explaination for fear you may also have bold font in your arsenal

  12. In reply to #13 by titania:

    Thanks for the replies. in reflection, this place may have not been the most appropriate place to ask it.

    Do not expect to find anything of value from the pseudo-science of this link or the further links to “Answers in Genesis”. They are an epitomy of “know-it-all” scientific illiteracy! Many scientists can easily answer their supposedly “imponderable” questions in a matter of minutes.

    From OP link – 101 Scientific Facts & Foreknowledge (From http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html)

    They pretend that scientists are as ignorant and confused as they are, but that is because they are so ignorant of science that they fail to recognise their own ignorance, and have no idea of the extent of the scientific knowledge available.

  13. From Linda:

    Life began on earth about 1.5 billion years ago, and for the first billion of those years reproduction was asexual (not sexual) unicellular microorganism splits up its DNA into batches, divides up and each half goes it own way. The parent dies but two copies of itself will live on. This was not very effective and it was very slow. Around 500,000,000 years ago bacteria mixed and matched DNA of two organisms rather than making clones for it’s offsprings. This sped up evolution and sexual reproduction evolved that is what caused the Cambrian explosion. Life Forms, that eventually led to man, some 495 million years later. Until sexual reproduction for a billion years amoebas were the highest life form.

    All new species arise this way, through small mutations in the DNA that are eventually realized in the new offspring. Chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the necessary mutation to the embryonic body plan to make the first true chicken. That one zygote cell then divided and formed a biologically modern chicken. The first chicken came from an egg laid by a pre-chicken. The first chicken would have to be produced from mutations resulting from non-chicken parents.

  14. Or how about an even simpler idea, we know for a fact that the earth revolved around the sun and rotates on it axis, this causes seasons and days and nights.

    We also know this planet has water on it. This facilitates the mixture of compounds.

    We also know that in the beginning of this planet it was on average much hotter than it is now.

    DNA breaks apart at about 85*c

    Now presuming you have a basic knowledge of Chemistry and Biology. It can be very simple to see that if the average day temperature is above 85c and the average night temperature is lower than 85c you can see how this would facilitate the random recombination of DNA or RNA sequences. This same principle is applicable to proteins and lipids. And now you have all of the basic necessities for life to begin existing, you will eventually get subsets of proteins and lipids that are capable of remaining stable in slightly higher temperatures and then eventually they will begin to protect specific set of DNA or RNA by binding to parts of it perhaps and eventually perhaps turn into ribosomes or similar early versions (it does not have to be efficient it just has to get the job done) that eventually will begin to create random protiens with the random DNA or RNA and eventually lead to the development of a cell wall to keep in the sequence that created the cell wall. This pattern creates the frame work for all of evolution simply the fact that things have have the ability to survive and reproduce will become more numberous and do exactly that then once they have to compete they will have to adapt to survive and grow. All of this is not only possible but when you are heating and cooling every day on billions and billions of particles for years and years in a giant solution of water it is not only possible it is almost impossible for it not to happen.

Leave a Reply