The Problem with Christians

[AAA]

I know how they theorized it happens, but just assuming the scaffolding that you're talking about ever existed is highly speculative. How did the enzymes get there? 'well other enzymes that were less developed morphed into them over time'. How did it survive before it had a mechanism to accomplish the regulation? 'well these other enzymes could regulate it too, but they were simpler and less intricate'. I read an article a few weeks ago about how catalytic promiscuity may aid enzymes in their evolution. One of the many speculations that they made were that enzymes with < 10% amino acid similarity were closely related because they shared the sequence for an active site. 


And I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about with the chemical reactions done hundreds of times to show polypeptide formation. Forming nucleotides or amino acids is NOT the same or equivalent to forming a functional sequence of them. And nobody is saying that you couldn't simplify the biochemical pathway a little, but you would really have to do some mental gymnastics to try to get it reasonably simple for the mechanisms of evolution to be sufficient.

Dafuq are you talking about? We know that the "scaffolding" systems exist because we can find the roots of the evolutionary changes/shifts in populations that are closely related (in which the systems did not change, or the scaffolding did not fall away), just as we can still find the roots of the evolution of the nephridic system, the deuterostome digestive system, the eyes, the brain, etc., all still extant in living populations. Similarly, we can track the DNA patterns mathematically and SEE (map) how they changed with time... System A duplicated into A and A1, then A1 mutated into the basis for an entirely different system, before finally System B1 took over with a more-efficient version, etc etc. This is what they mapped when Behe claimed the bacterial flagellum was IC, discovering that, no, the systems he said IC were in fact useful in their "disassembled" form, working as cellular pumps before being co-opted into part of the "motor" for the flagellum. Surely you've read that paper.

Working from principles we know and understand about how DNA functions is not mere speculation. 

And what do you mean, "...for the mechanisms of evolution to be sufficient"? All it takes for evolution is to have a self-replicating molecule form. One. Something akin to "Hammerhead" RNA/ribosome, for instance. The Jet Propulsion Lab folks in the Ames Research Center over at NASA have been working on figuring out the conditions under which we'd expect to find (aside from earth) environments which can produce these substances from the precursor molecules found in interstellar ice clouds. If I recall correctly, they are examining the possibility that life here didn't begin with RNA (though the "RNA World" hypothesis seems to hold the most weight, at the moment), but with TNA, based on the simpler molecule threose... though, given the fact that we've found ribose in interstellar ices via radio telescope and duplicated its formation in labs, it may not have been necessary for the simpler molecule to prestage RNA.

So why don't you just pick up the phone, call the astrochemists at the Ames Research Center, and tell them that they're totally off-base? I'll get the number for you:

(650) 604-5000 NASA Ames Research Center

I don't think it's a given that once you have a replicating system you have unlimited capacity to develop everything else. All we see in extant species are systems that can accomplish their task. In order to get from any system to another, you have to have functioning system at every step. Are you telling me that you believe there are different functioning systems going from (lets pick the brain) the most primordial nervous system to the higher evolved ones? Think of all the systems that would have had to exist in between. Is it not speculative to say that they existed? 

Also no I don't want to tell them they are off base, I never said that we should stop origin of life research. I look forward to seeing what they find. I don't discourage investigation into a scientific idea.