Re: [Marxism] Darwin and molecular biology

[Ken Ranney <kranney@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mike Friedman writes:
  "You need to be more specific. What is it about the synthesis of collagen
that defies Darwin?"

I see a serious contradiction between the "small inherited 
modifications" which Darwin imagined, each of which he claimed was 
"profitable to the preserved being" and the steps in the synthesis of 
collagen, as I have adapted them from MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF THE 
CELL.  For 18 of the 25 steps, the precursors of collagen are in 
solution and can make no contribution whatsoever to` the fibrous 
properties of collagen. None of these 18 steps can be "profitable to 
the preserved being". This "defies Darwin".


At 06:54 PM 10/10/2008, Mike Friedman wrote:
>You need to be more specific. What is it about the synthesis of collagen
>that defies Darwin? If you're going where I think you are, then your
>argument is the same as one of those brandished by the "intelligent
>designers." Contrary to what you state, there is no contradiction between
>Darwinian evolution and biochemical processes. In fact, biochemistry and
>molecular biology added missing pieces (the "new synthesis") to Darwin's
>original formulation, i.e. the molecular basis for heritable traits. In
>other words, nothing in biochemistry has falsified Darwinian evolution,
>although we have learned much more about the relationship between
>environment, genotype and phenotypic expression since Darwin. For example,
>small changes (a single nucleotide mutating) at the genetic level can
>translate into big changes at the phenotypic level.
>

Ken Ranney
434 Hillcrest Ave
Peterborough, Ontario
K9J 6H6
(705) 743 2939 
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu