17
Feb
09

Holy shit, batman

I just finished watching a video on youtube which was so funny, I have to share it:

I won’t embed it, that would waste your time, instead, I’ll just go point by point:

1) The idea that cells “fell together” is laughable, but not for the reasons one would suspect. Phospholipids (naturally occurring), when placed in turbulant water, form vesicles. These are simple structures, which could have easily encapsulate free self replicating RNAs. Conversely, self-replicating RNAs may have found a way to invade vesicles for purposes of protection from other self replicating RNAs. The possible course of the first “cell” formation is, as of yet, an unsolved puzzle, but there are many pieces in place.

2) The idea that the first “cell” had to “eat” and “digest” as we think of the terms is also quite funny. What, exactly, does a self-replicating RNA need to “eat” other than free ribonucleotides?  Does it need to digest them? Well, it only needs to digest them if these ribonucleotides are already part of sequences, but that’s pretty simple, an RNA that can form a copy of itself only needs a few changes to reverse the catalytic process. What must it excrete? The copies of RNA? Well, that’s interesting, wouldn’t it, say, be easier to leave the vessicle, which it probably already entered somehow, in the reverse of the first step? Again, reverse reactions are often just as simple, if not more simple, than the first reaction. Reproduce? It did that before it was in a vessicle.

3) Your first major flaw is that the first cells were reliant upon DNA, in fact, the first cells, in all likelihood, (this is far after the above mentioned part 2) were still reliant upon RNA. As for DNA being delicate, a strip, or RIBOSE instead of deoxyribose, what are you comparing it to? DNA is a helix, although, it may seem like a strip when you press it into that two dimensional representation, which is not, in fact, DNA, but a representation of DNA, it is helical. This imparts some stability into it. It is delicate when you compare it to, for example, the crystaline structure of diamond, but the bonds are pretty strong on the molecular level. As for DNA being “aligned perfectly,” well yea, molecular bonds do hold them together, but I digress, I suppose thymine dimers are perfectly alligned, as are deaminated deoxycytosine which has become deoxyuracil. Interestingly enough, those “base pairs” can form bonds with other things than the “correct” deoxynucleotide. I guess it’s still “perfect,” though.

4) The whole idea that a “cell writes itself” is also quite humorous. Of course another, very similar, cell assembled the DNA or RNA. This is not a perfect system, though, and mismatches previously mentioned do occur. More frequently in early cells which lacked proofreading systems. This leads to higher mortality and stronger selection…

5) He’s still talking about MODERN organisms “spontaneously arising.” Of course not! This entire argument is based upon a false premise. This entire argument is an argument from ignorance. This ENTIRE thing is one giant, frivilous, nonsensical, and pretentious fallacy.

6) The idea that RNA and DNA are in “language” is similar to the idea that DNA is “information.” I’ve explained this already.

7) Now, RNA doesn’t “read” DNA in a modern cell, they probably never did. Do your own homework on this bit of cell biology.

8) The “20 amino acid” lie, so much fun, there are dozens of other amino acids. Again, homework.

After about the 5 minute mark, the guy gets so far out of his league, I want to fall over crying. Seriously, might I recommend a few books on molecular biology to this guy?

On a further note, those of you who wish to send additional emails of how wrong I am and your particular notion of “god” made all life and the planet, feel free, I need the laughs during work; I don’t get enough of them and my e-mail goes straight to my phone.

Advertisements

1 Response to “Holy shit, batman”


  1. February 19, 2009 at 4:38 pm

    Oh well, it’s a propaganda piece aimed at themselves and the kids. If scientists don’t put counter-pieces on YouTube then the Creationists get away with it.

    It’s hard enough to tell truth from fiction as it is without religionists couching their beliefs in scientific terms like this guy.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Join the best atheist themed blogroll!

RSS Adventures in Ethics and Science

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Blag Hag

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS denialism blog

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS ERV

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Greg Laden’s Blog

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Laelaps

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Lawful Good Wonk

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted)

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Pharyngula

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Tetrapod Zoology

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS White Coat underground

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Older stuff

wordpress stats

%d bloggers like this: