| Line 107: |
Line 107: |
| | ::This seems a relatively easy point to refute. Note that the bases in DNA interact with each other through hydrogen bonding, an extremely common process with guides interactions between a wide range of compounds including organic molecules, inorganic metal complexes, and water, to name a few. When oriented relative to the backbone structure of the DNA molecule, thymine has one oxygen atom with a lone pair and one hydrogen bonded to a nitrogen exposed to the adjacent base pair. Adenine has one hydrogen atom bonded to a nitrogen and one nitrogen with a lone pair. Thus each of these molecules has two hydrogen bonding sites exposed to the adjacent base which allows for exactly two hydrogen bonding interactions. Cytosine, in contrast, has one oxygen with a lone pair, one nitrogen with a lone pair, and one hydrogen bonded to a nitrogen, and guanine has one oxygen with a lone pair and two hydrogens bonded to two nitrogens. This means cytosine and guanine have three hydrogen bonding sites and thus hydrogen bond to each other three times. This is not to say that interactions between adenine and guanine or thymine and cytosine for example are strictly prohibited. But if all four molecules existed in their free forms in solution, one would absolutely NOT expect adenine to interact with cytosine and guanine as much as it would interact with thymine. The bases are MOST STABLE in their interactions with the corresponding base pair because only the corresponding base pair has the correct number of hydrogen bonding sites. Note that the bases do not readily interact with themselves because they are essentially mirror images of each other; lone pairs must interact with hydrogens and vice versa, so the orientation of a base is not correct for it to hydrogen bond readily with itself. Essentially, thymine pairs with adenine and cytosine pairs with guanine due to simple chemistry. --[[User:StevenJP|StevenJP]] 20:21, 29 April 2013 (EDT) | | ::This seems a relatively easy point to refute. Note that the bases in DNA interact with each other through hydrogen bonding, an extremely common process with guides interactions between a wide range of compounds including organic molecules, inorganic metal complexes, and water, to name a few. When oriented relative to the backbone structure of the DNA molecule, thymine has one oxygen atom with a lone pair and one hydrogen bonded to a nitrogen exposed to the adjacent base pair. Adenine has one hydrogen atom bonded to a nitrogen and one nitrogen with a lone pair. Thus each of these molecules has two hydrogen bonding sites exposed to the adjacent base which allows for exactly two hydrogen bonding interactions. Cytosine, in contrast, has one oxygen with a lone pair, one nitrogen with a lone pair, and one hydrogen bonded to a nitrogen, and guanine has one oxygen with a lone pair and two hydrogens bonded to two nitrogens. This means cytosine and guanine have three hydrogen bonding sites and thus hydrogen bond to each other three times. This is not to say that interactions between adenine and guanine or thymine and cytosine for example are strictly prohibited. But if all four molecules existed in their free forms in solution, one would absolutely NOT expect adenine to interact with cytosine and guanine as much as it would interact with thymine. The bases are MOST STABLE in their interactions with the corresponding base pair because only the corresponding base pair has the correct number of hydrogen bonding sites. Note that the bases do not readily interact with themselves because they are essentially mirror images of each other; lone pairs must interact with hydrogens and vice versa, so the orientation of a base is not correct for it to hydrogen bond readily with itself. Essentially, thymine pairs with adenine and cytosine pairs with guanine due to simple chemistry. --[[User:StevenJP|StevenJP]] 20:21, 29 April 2013 (EDT) |
| | | | |
| − | ==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?== | + | ==How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?== |
| | ''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?'' | | ''How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?'' |
| | | | |
| Line 193: |
Line 193: |
| | ===What a creationist would reply=== | | ===What a creationist would reply=== |
| | | | |
| − | ==How did multi-cellular life originate?== | + | ==How did multi-cellular life originate?== |
| | ''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?'' | | ''How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?'' |
| | | | |
| Line 202: |
Line 202: |
| | ===What a creationist would reply=== | | ===What a creationist would reply=== |
| | | | |
| − | ==How did sex originate?== | + | ==How did sex originate?== |
| | ''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).'' | | ''Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).'' |
| | | | |
| Line 246: |
Line 246: |
| | :::::--[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 17:26, 13 January 2012 (GMT) | | :::::--[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 17:26, 13 January 2012 (GMT) |
| | | | |
| − | ==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?== | + | ==Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?== |
| | ''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.'' | | ''Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.'' |
| | ===What an evolutionist would say=== | | ===What an evolutionist would say=== |
| Line 268: |
Line 268: |
| | ===What a creationist would reply=== | | ===What a creationist would reply=== |
| | | | |
| − | ==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?== | + | ==How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?== |
| | ''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?'' | | ''If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?'' |
| | ===What an evolutionist would say=== | | ===What an evolutionist would say=== |
| Line 287: |
Line 287: |
| | ===What a creationist would reply=== | | ===What a creationist would reply=== |
| | | | |
| − | ==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?== | + | ==Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?== |
| | ''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?'' | | ''Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?'' |
| | ===What an evolutionist would say=== | | ===What an evolutionist would say=== |
| Line 296: |
Line 296: |
| | ===What a creationist would reply=== | | ===What a creationist would reply=== |
| | | | |
| − | ==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?== | + | ==Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?== |
| | ''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”'' | | ''You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”'' |
| | | | |