Conceptual Barriers to Open Questions
by BradfordViewpoint features two consecutive entries relevant to discussions of Intelligent design. Microscopic Clutch refers to the familiar bacterial flagellum and notes a construct, analogous to the clutch of an automobole transmission, enabling rotation stoppage. Arguments, pro and con, about irreducible complexity are well known. Critics of Behe have argued that Behe's selection conundrum can be overcome through evolutionary cooption of systems within which distinct IC parts already existed replete with biological function albeit not necessarily function presently observed. The issue of interrelatedness of parts to function is pushed back in time. The evolutionary cooption alternative obviates the necessity of a telic process. Or does it? If we retrace an evolutionary process we eventually arrive at a single cell; the basic unit of living organisms but irreducibly complex nonetheless.
Was that cell loaded with modular cellular constructs designed to adapt to the variations of earthly environments or can a reductionist approach be traced back to extra-cellular chemistry on prebiotic earth? There are multiple variants of "front loading" the author points out. Front loading a process can be viewed as a series of steps in which each one in the series was enabled by the preceeding one traced back to an initial starting unit- a pre-wound mechanism to use a metaphor.
Is active information required to find targets in search space and does the vast size of protein sequence space assure us that the evolution of protein sequence, structure and function is a given in the absence of front loading?
The God Delusion, Ch 7 (partII) is a second Viewpoint entry accurately debunking the nonsense holding that non-religious value systems are intrinsically preferable. Those convinced that God is a delusion are front loaded with conceptual barriers to an objective assessment of the sufficiency of a non-telic process.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Hi Bradford,
All I can say is the fact that evolution borrows so deeply and thoroughly, and that it relies so much on gene duplication and horizontal transfer, tells us that front-loading is a viable hypothesis.
As for the questions, there is also the question as to just how much the blind watchmaker could accomplish without proteins. I hit on this here and here and will be adding more with the help of the RNA world.
Oh yeah, and a brief observation at the book blog.
Comment by MikeGene — June 24, 2008 @ 11:49 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 11:00 am
From a link supplied by Mike:
The term catalytic is loosely used by RNA world enthusiasts who put forth the argument that RNA catalytic properties could have initially substituted for those of proteins. The term catalytic has a very limited scope when referencing RNA. Not nearly as diverse as the catalytic functions displayed by proteins. There is an unsupported assumption that the more limited functions would have sufficed to allow for a sustained, self-replicating entity capable of evolving and giving rise to protein function.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2008 @ 11:00 am
June 25th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
And those limitations are…?
Comment by mitschlag — June 25, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
June 26th, 2008 at 12:20 am
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesig...
Comment by Bradford — June 26, 2008 @ 12:20 am