deadman_932
Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006
|
| Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 04 2008,18:54) | | Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 03 2008,16:38) | Daniel Smith (D.S. -- just like DaveTard) wrote:
| Quote | | There are tremendous gaps between the kinds of simple systems being discussed in abiogenesis research and the present systems: gaps that cannot be bridged by natural selection. |
I'll join in the chorus asking you to support this claim of yours with actual data, rather than pointing to the gaps themselves (which would be a fallacy, D.S.)
And yes, you're right, there are gaps in our knowledge of amino synthesis in E. coli. However, there is work on the subject that leads me to say that your claim quoted above "[these] gaps cannot be bridged by natural selection," is unsupported and fallacious.
Furthermore, your unqualified claim that "enzymes are required to make amino acids" isn't true.
Example: In a brief 5-minute search on amino synthesis, I see aspartate, asparagine, methionine, threonine, isoleucine, tryptophan, glutamate (2 routes-glutamine, proline, arginine) and lysine pathways beginning to be unraveled, specifically in E. coli.
That's 10 out of 20 in a 5-min. search. And yes, regulators are being investigated. And yes, the origins of aminos themselves are being investigated, as well as precursors to all aspects of biosynthesis and incorporation.
This alone argues strongly against your personal incredulity and other fallacies you employed, even if it doesn't rise to whatever levels of detail you desire. The fact remains that details are being brought to light daily-- which argues strongly against your ex recto pronouncements
Nice Gish Gallop, though -- how's that saddle horn feel? |
I've done the search you're talking about and know that biochemical pathways are being "unraveled" (more correctly "discovered"), but I see little in the way of suggested intermediate evolutionary pathways for the transformation of the assumed "ancient, simple system" into our "modern, highly evolved" system. If you have links, please provide them.
Just because the current pathways are dissected and analyzed, and knowledge is constantly gained, doesn't necessarily mean the answer you seek has been (or will be) found. All data does not automatically support the "accidental evolutionary theory". If the pieces don't all come together, it could be because you're building the wrong puzzle.
I applaud the research that's being done. I hope they discover everything that can be known about amino acid synthesis. My prediction is not that they will not be able to discover how it works, but that they won't be able to explain how it came to be.
If they ever do - then I'm wrong - simple as that. |
Apparently, you haven't searched too hard at all. I also find it amusing that you can make predictions based on nothing but incredulity.
P.S. : try looking at very primitive organisms that still exist (big hint, junior) , and the lysine pathway, among others. Or Argenine, and how the evolutionary changes to organisms like e.coli or are also being unravelled (or "discovered," if you like, it's all the same.).
I'm not going to do your work for you, but I assure you, the data is there, in large amounts. (I could give you about thirty cites right now). I'm just not going to hand it to you without you doing some actual work yourself, rather than you merely making vapid "predictions" based on your ignorance.
You simply don't know what you're talking about. Hell, I'm just an ordinary archaeologist yet I can manage to do a lit search and look at articles locally. Try it, it might do you good to learn what we do know -- instead of you stroking your ego as a troll here.
--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism
|
