coyote
Thanks for your tip about prions. These are interesting organisms and also very scary.
These protein particles arise from mutations. And some may be spread to other organisms. What makes these particles interesting is that, so far, no one has found any nucleic acid. They are scary because the normal methods of destroying infection, cancers and other cell and organism caused diseases don't work.
I read in detail the pro/con discussion on Nova On-line and the jury is still out on these guys. They are definitely the product of DNA, as they arise in certain animals, sheep and cows. But they appear to carry only information that was obtained from the parent animal. If they do indeed lack nucleic acid,
they are the only living organism who do. The "folded" particles (the bad ones that cause disease) can not reproduce in the traditional sense. They can't divide and form new individuals. But when they touch a "good" protien particle, the good one is somehow transformed into the bad. Apparently some enzyme contained in the bad prion spreads to the good prion and converts it. In this way, the bad prions can multiply. But prions, by themselves, can't produce a second generation. New prions must be produced by the parent animal.
As to the information contained in them, there is no other known source for it other than the parents animal's DNA. If prions have no nucleic acid, then the information may be carried by enzyme sequence. Not enough is known about these guys to reach any definitive conclusion.
As to these guys being a forerunner of DNA, the probability is very low. Prions are a product of DNA so how could they be the parent? Either the chicken or the egg had to come first. And if prions can't produce a second generation.
The question of what is (and is not) a theory is a matter of definition and convention. My comments were not to spell out the specific reuirements of theories but rather to point out the flawed thinking of macroevolutionists.
The Nova article I referred to earlier contains a good explanation of the hypothesis to theory process which involves the perfection of a hypothesis.
The following quote is from David Bolton, Phd:
"People often assume that scientists are in the business of trying to prove hypotheses or theories. This assumption is incorrect because hypotheses can never be proved; they can only be disproved. A hypothesis that fails one or more tests is considered disproved and it is discarded. If it is not disproved after being tested in many different ways, we become more confident that it is correct. A hypothesis is valid as long as it explains the behavior of the system it describes, but it is always possible that it will have to be revised or discarded based on new results."
As to TalkOrigins, the problem with their transitional "tree of life" is that most of it is based on speculation and not actual fossils. A few years ago I reseached a sequence of their alleged transitions. I contacted the web site and asked what fossils these transitions were based upon. The told me that these transitions were based on morphological appearance. QWhen i pressed them on this issue, they couldn't cite one fossil in this sequence. So these alleged transitions are not based on facts, but on wishful speculation and guesses.
This site has proven itself to make statements that are not supported and any "information" taken from this site is effectively worthless.
As to Gould's article, doesn't the title itself say that it is not based on science? The title says a theory is also a fact. And then he procedds to convolute reality to support his flwaed statement. Macroevoutuion is an unproven hypothesis and is not a fact. And since no one can directly observe that past, interpretations do not establish fact.
I have heard crap like this for years from evolutionists delivered with a straight face, intended to decieve an unsuspecting public into thinking they have all the answers.
As to the TNA research at NASA, your defense says everything that needs to be said. It is not necessary to research feasible or probable topics. Only topics that may defend the established presupposition, evolution. And if this quack does pronounce his research a success, what has he accomplished?. He doesn't know if TNA ever existed or even could have existed. So after he finishes his research, we still don't have any answers. This research is a waste of money and exposes the thinking of evolutionists :
When you reach a deadend, just propose a new hypothesis, get more research dollars from the suckers and keep on truckin. No need to face reality here, just repeat the mantra that this is important research and it advances our knowledge and please be generous.
Predictable mutations are not the source of supposed improvements to a species. Every predictable mutation results in an impaired individual. Prions result in evetual death. Sickle cell anemia is fatal. These weak spots are well studied and produce deformities and never improvements.
Do you have any answers to my charge that evolution violates the entropy law of thermodynamics and the first law of biogenesis that does not source from TalkOrigins?
