Back to irreducible complexity (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 23, 2010, 19:48 (5214 days ago) @ David Turell

This article by a theistic philosopher of science gives a brief account of how the ribosome manufactures proteins, and presents the usual chicken and egg problem for evolution. Does anyone have an answer for his observation?
> > > 
> > > http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/01/ribosome-checks-for-translation-errors.html&... > > 
> > > Mine is DNA was pre-coded to make the ribosome.
> > 
> > Interesting, he's really tackling an origins question and not one of evolution or natural selection. He's asking "how did ribosomes evolve property 'x,'" when clearly life as we can describe requires ribosomes to function. 
> > 
> > That's why his argument spins its wheels here.
> 
> We're back to the obvious comment. We only know life that comes from life, and we may never know how inorganic chemistry accomplished the switch to organic chemistry, especially when you add up all the necessarily different protein molecules needed to function smoothly with each other in the simplest single cell we know, mycoplasma. Viruses don't count. They must parasitize life to continue 'sort-of living'.-Right, but that has no bearing at all on evolution. It's an origin of life question and has nothing to do with evolution OR natural selection. We've agreed previously that evolution doesn't need to explain the origin of life in order to explain life. This guy's argument fails because he's attacking evolution by arguing about the origins of life; these are two different topics. -What we really have here is an Einstein moment: Like relativity, we have an awesome explanation for life itself, but have no explanation for how life came to be.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"