Saturday, July 24, 2010
Everything I Know About RNA I Learned From Bill Murray
I love metaphor, analogy, and Bill Murray (oh my gosh Dr. Leo -- you're the greatest!). So, I gotta love this quote embedded inside a serious science article:
"It's a molecular groundhog day". (Shouldn't that be "molecular Groundhog Day"?
Why Evolution is True:
"Short of positing celestial design, the only way to explain optimization is via the workings of selection. If so, the code of life must have evolved."
This is the circularity of darwinian assumptions applied to origins of life. "If it wasn't created, it must have evolved. Created is not a scientific explanation. Since science is the only way of eliciting reality, evolution must true. Evolution-is-true proves creationism false!"
But, there are disturbances in the force. Another metaphor:
"Effectively, RNA can't see past its own nose and is never going to generate complexity in a solution."
Ha! O faithless one. This one is simple. The RNA first evolves a Pinnochio-sized nose.
Next? "This is a chicken-and-egg situation just as ineluctable as the DNA-protein loop, albeit less celebrated. (p. 54)"
I'm gonna let noted evolutionist Paul McCartney take this one. "There will be an answer. Let it be."
The answer comes "...in a fluke of fortune bordering on the unbelievable, it might be that both the bacteria and archaea emerged from the very same hydrothermal mound."
This is the state-of-the-evolutionary-assumpted-science. A scientific description which resorts to using the words fluke and unbelievable.
An unbelievable fluke (i.e., the scientific approach) or intelligent design (i.e., the unscientific, superstitious, bone-headed creationist approach).
There will be an answer. Let it be.
PS - Jonathan. I couldn't dig out the quote I was thinking of on RNA world problems, but this article will do.
"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"