Posted: Apr 15, 2012 11:20 pm
asyncritus wrote:
Guess you didn't pay any attention to this:
But, as Monod points out the machinery by which the cell (at least the nonprimitive cell which is the only one we know) translates the code `consists of a least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA' (Monod, 1970; 1971, 143).
You make it sound so idiotically simple. Yet both Monod and Popper disagree with you. How do you account for that disagreement?
And you, in turn, did not pay attention to my post here.
While the concept of RNA as a precursor to the DNA/protein system has its roots in Woese (you may have heard of him, he's the guy who elucidated the concept of the 3 Domains of life), RNA world as a fully fleshed out hypothesis was not in common usage until after 1986. That's 15 years after Monod published his work and 26 years before today. As I mentioned in my post, you're four decades off the pace.
As DavidMcc suggested, RNA can act as both template and enzyme. All proteins are transcribed from mRNA templates which is proof of concept that RNA could have been a template for any postulated macromolecular component. Monod didn't know this because he published his book 15 years before the concept came into vogue.
What you are doing here is like someone using Newton to refute Einstein. You are citing outdated sources in an attempt to refute science published after those sources - it is a prime example of poor scholarship and one that would get you severely reprimanded in any reputable academic institution. Stop it.
Monod says 'at least fifty macromolecular components'. Whether he meant proteins or not, it unclear.
But the probability of 50 macromolecular components, being there at the right time, with all the other cellular machinery required, is prettly small, wouldn't you say? I would say impossible.
Please go read up on RNA world concept before you embarrass yourself further.
But rumraket wants a calculation of specified complexity. Can you provide a calculation of the probability of the process you wishfully describe so airily?
I recognise nonsense when I see it. Tough luck.
Did you miss my other post here?
Specified complexity is an oxymoron and cannot be defined even by its proponents.