DNA Was Designed By A Mind

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

Yeah, 'replicative ability'.

Quote:
A system of reproduction must eventually develop. If our network is housed in a lipid membrane, then physical forces may split it, after it has grown enough. (Freeman Dyson has described such a system as a "garbage-bag world" in contrast to the "neat and beautiful scene" of the RNA world.) A system that functions in a compartment within a mineral may overflow into adjacent compartments. Whatever the mechanism may be, this dispersal into separated units protects the system from total extinction by a localized destructive event. Once independent units were established, they could evolve in different ways and compete with one another for raw materials; we would have made the transition from life that emerges from nonliving matter through the action of an available energy source to life that adapts to its environment by Darwinian evolution

Shapiro hopes that if a rock falls on his metabolic organism (physical forces split it ) that somehow (he doesn't really say how ) that two 'mini-me' bubbles will pop up in the place of the one that was split, and each of the 'new generation' will have sufficient chemical contents to continue the previous metabolic activity uninterrupted.

Quite a 'standard' there, parados.

Wishful thinking would be a more accurate term.

Hardly wishful thinking. Make a stack of glasses. Pour water into the top glass. You will notice that water flows into the lower glasses after the top glass is full.

Did you forget that one of the requirements Shapiro lists is growth. When something increases in size it eventually overflows any hard container it is in. It isn't wishful thinking at all but an easy thing to show. I think you are "wishing" it wasn't true.

Comparing a lipid membrane to a hard glass container that is open at one end is absurd.

Comparing a mix of chemicals engaged in metabolic activity to water is absurd.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
'We may not know HOW it happened, we just know IT DID'

by the hyper-naturalist crowd is a statement of faith, not science.

...... admitting one's ignorance of the mechanism ..... is not a statement of faith.

Stating or implying that there exists or existed a mechanism is an assumption since there is no evidence that such ever existed.

Setanta wrote:

.......Saying that one does not know how it arose is honesty .......

Stating or implying that 'it arose' is not honesty, it is an assumption since there is no evidence of the process/transition that you imply.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
The problem is that as you go upladder, some of the compounds you need are inherently unstable, and even water will destroy them

Some are and some aren't. What about it?

Where and under what conditions exactly do you propose your replicator 'evolved' ?

( I know, I know , 'we may not know WHERE it evolved , we just KNOW THAT IT DID' ) Laughing

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

See, if theres evidence, Its really not supernatural. If its really supernatural , theres no evidence.

ok, so since there is NO evidence that 'many generations of replicative molecules preceding RNA and DNA' ever actually existed , is it science?

since there is NO evidence that a 'singularity' preceding the origin of the universe ever actually existed, is it science?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

The belief in God isn't exempt from the reasoning you use to criticize evolution.

Apples and oranges, Brandon.

0 Replies

Quote:

ok, so since there is NO evidence that 'many generations of replicative molecules preceding RNA and DNA' ever actually existed , is it science?

you are fabricating answers again RL. The record of crystal structures of multi chained C12 coacervate molecules are in the fossil record. They are similar(almost identical) in morphology to body structures and can be inferred to compare soundly to molecules we associatewith "life". From there on-You are very selective in what you ignore. I suppose its a worldview thing. Its not my mission to engage in some debate with you because I find your selective ignorance totally disengenuous , and similar to a trial advocate who ignores all other counter data and evidence because it screws up his defense case.
We can trace life's tracks clear back to a deep time less than a Billion years after the planets origin. Here , in rocks of those ages we find tracks of protolife and then life, NOT (as you say) "fully formed " and mysteriously appearing, but appearing in a sequence from an anoxc condition to life that exudes Oxygen and gradually become motile and more complex wit segmentation. You cant present that sequence in your "SCientific Creationist" viewpoint, no matter how you squirm. SO your comparison of science and the supernatural is invalid based upon the facts.

As far as "singularities", I think Im on record to be a "Brane"fan with the concept of multiverses and membrane ontact issuing forth a "bb". In any fashion, we can get back about 98% to a big Bang or brane contact phenomena and then we must speculate via math. Sometimes science doesnt get us all the way there , however, that doesnt automatically lead to a default position involving boogey mans involvement. Again, I can see how you need to cling to that, but you have to recognize that your position is arrived at only by selective ignorance rather than any insight.
By automatically defaulting to the supernatural in these few areas of science is kinda cowardly on your behalf. Are you afraid of what may be revealed?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
The belief in God isn't exempt from the reasoning you use to criticize evolution.

Apples and oranges, Brandon.

So. basically, what you want is to be able to criticize my theory of the origins of life on the basis of insufficient rigor, but when I turn around and say that you're a far worse offender, to be able to say, "Oh, no, I can do what I want. I'm exempt. My opinions can't be challenged."

On what basis is your theory of the origin of life on Earth exempt from your own logical questions? When others try to critcize your model of the way life arose in just exactly the way you criticize theirs, you say, "Oh, no, you can't challenge me." What a crock.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
The belief in God isn't exempt from the reasoning you use to criticize evolution.

Apples and oranges, Brandon.

This is the ultimate hypocrisy from the biggest peddler of lies at this site. Time and again the member "real life" has attempted to chide those who seek a naturalistic and scientific explanation for cosmic origins for, as he alleges it, a belief set no different than his own. He has always been insistent upon using the term faith.

But now, when Brandon has backed him into a rhetorical corner, he wants to deny the very logic by which he assails those who don't buy his bible-thumper, imaginary friend belief set in comparing their position to his "faith."

Liar

Moron

Hypocrite

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
'We may not know HOW it happened, we just know IT DID'

by the hyper-naturalist crowd is a statement of faith, not science.

...... admitting one's ignorance of the mechanism ..... is not a statement of faith.

Stating or implying that there exists or existed a mechanism is an assumption since there is no evidence that such ever existed.

Setanta wrote:
.......Saying that one does not know how it arose is honesty .......

Stating or implying that 'it arose' is not honesty, it is an assumption since there is no evidence of the process/transition that you imply.

You were pretty brain-dead when you wrote that tripe. We know that life exists, and that it employs replicative chemicals--RNA and DNA. Therefore, it is not an article of faith, it is not an assumption, that a replicative mechanism existed--had no such replicative mechanism existed, you wouldn't have life as it now exists. That RNA and DNA arose is self-evident, except perhaps to the self-deluded.

This time, you have shown yourself an extraordinary . . .

Moron

Liar.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

( I know, I know , 'we may not know WHERE it evolved , we just KNOW THAT IT DID' )

What a jackass . . . of course that we know that it did, and the evidence is the life around us.

0 Replies

Zeroing in on the topic of this thread, what evidence do either BD or "real life" have to offer that DNA was designed by a mind?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

[
Comparing a lipid membrane to a hard glass container that is open at one end is absurd.

Comparing a mix of chemicals engaged in metabolic activity to water is absurd.

Are you sure you read Shapiro?

A lipid membrane is not the only proposed "container." A lipid membrane is also not capable of holding forever an expanding (growing) life force unless the lipid membrane is also increasing in size. Lipid membranes are restricted in how large they can get before they fail, based on size, and the surrounding environment. It hardly requires a "rock" falling on them to cause it to split. My glass and water example was about Shapiro's use of chambers in minerals. Shapiro used it and you seem to be unaware of it.

Where does Shapiro propose that his metabolic activity is never in a liquid form of some kind? A liquid is almost mandatory based on what Shapiro says. Life today is mostly water. To claim that nothing flows in our cells is absurd.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
( I know, I know , 'we may not know WHERE it evolved , we just KNOW THAT IT DID' )

of course that we know that it did, and the evidence is the life around us.

Then address the issue, as stated:

The problem is that as you go upladder, some of the compounds you need are inherently unstable, and even water will destroy them.

Where and under what conditions exactly do you propose your replicator 'evolved' ?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
ok, so since there is NO evidence that 'many generations of replicative molecules preceding RNA and DNA' ever actually existed , is it science?

you are fabricating answers again RL. The record of crystal structures of multi chained C12 coacervate molecules are in the fossil record. They are similar(almost identical) in morphology to body structures and can be inferred to compare soundly to molecules we associatewith "life". From there on-You are very selective in what you ignore. I suppose its a worldview thing. Its not my mission to engage in some debate with you because I find your selective ignorance totally disengenuous , and similar to a trial advocate who ignores all other counter data and evidence because it screws up his defense case.
We can trace life's tracks clear back to a deep time less than a Billion years after the planets origin. Here , in rocks of those ages we find tracks of protolife and then life, NOT (as you say) "fully formed " and mysteriously appearing, but appearing in a sequence from an anoxc condition to life that exudes Oxygen and gradually become motile and more complex wit segmentation. You cant present that sequence in your "SCientific Creationist" viewpoint, no matter how you squirm. SO your comparison of science and the supernatural is invalid based upon the facts.

As far as "singularities", I think Im on record to be a "Brane"fan with the concept of multiverses and membrane ontact issuing forth a "bb". In any fashion, we can get back about 98% to a big Bang or brane contact phenomena and then we must speculate via math. Sometimes science doesnt get us all the way there , however, that doesnt automatically lead to a default position involving boogey mans involvement. Again, I can see how you need to cling to that, but you have to recognize that your position is arrived at only by selective ignorance rather than any insight.
By automatically defaulting to the supernatural in these few areas of science is kinda cowardly on your behalf. Are you afraid of what may be revealed?

Your faith is admirable, I must say, since you have absolutely NO evidence that such 'multiverses' have ever existed, nor ANY evidence that a self replicating molecule other than dna/rna has EVER been the basis for ANY living organism.

NONE.

0 Replies

Go on Settin' Aah-aah.

Answer that. Where and under what conditions exactly do you propose your replicator 'evolved' ?

And don't try squirming with some scientific bullshit you have C&Peed off a blog. Or a book.

0 Replies

You as well fm.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
( I know, I know , 'we may not know WHERE it evolved , we just KNOW THAT IT DID' )

of course that we know that it did, and the evidence is the life around us.

Then address the issue, as stated:

The problem is that as you go upladder, some of the compounds you need are inherently unstable, and even water will destroy them.

Where and under what conditions exactly do you propose your replicator 'evolved' ?

Where Shapiro said is one possibility.

Oh.. that's right, you didn't really read Shapiro.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Your faith is admirable, I must say, since you have absolutely NO evidence that such 'multiverses' have ever existed, nor ANY evidence that a self replicating molecule other than dna/rna has EVER been the basis for ANY living organism.

NONE.

Yes, and you have never told us how matter acts in a black hole. You must take it on faith that it is affected like matter in the rest of the universe.

Fact - black holes exist, we have evidence.
Fact - We do not know actually know what happens to matter in a black hole.

Using your logic, if we can't show that matter is neither created or destroyed in a black hole then it would be supernatural. So.. Does this mean science can see evidence of supernatural things? Since science can see evidence of supernatural things, why have you presented no evidence of your supernatural being?

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

I must say, since you have absolutely NO evidence that such 'multiverses' have ever existed, nor ANY evidence that a self replicating molecule other than dna/rna has EVER been the basis for ANY living organism

As I said, we can get to within a few seconds of the BB initiation via leftover fragments of energy and the "domed" radial construction of the universe. Science works as far as the evidence takes it and then attempts to recontruct the rest. WE can get to a few percentages from the beginning and we work backward from there. Youve got NOTHING AT ALL TO EVEN BEGIN WITH.
As far as the origin of life, replication is but one of the several features of the living state. We have evidence of several of these features (such as respiration) , The increasing mass of C12 and chiral organic "fossil" crystals in isolate sediments can only be explained by the existence of something like "life". (I recall that your argument has always been for "fully formed" living state beings in existence without transitionals from simple to more complex. Therefore, If you are attempting to argue from a "Scientific Creationist " viewpoint, and are attempting to beat down real science, then you need to hone your "argument" based upon your interpretation of these fossil shelves and organic masses of the early Proterozoic. Saying that there is NO evidence is just some more of your selective ignorance ( and stubbornly retained ignorance at that)

Science merely attempts to apply natural explenations to the mix. Any idiot can make up myths and "creation tales" without evidence or , like you,by denying all the existing evidence and attempting to say that it doesnt exist when youy know that youre a liar on that point (I know youre not that dumb, so I can only assume that youre that devious).

Please dont deny us the way for the search for truth and discoveries of honest facts by attempting to deny evidence and defaulting to your story of a Great Being in the sky. It must be difficult to live in a world where there is NO train of evidence to back up any part of your bullshit. NO?

You used to argue from a standpoint of what you called "absence of evidence" and "a multiple interpretative methodology" . I think you made much moe sense in that time than you are with your total mythological ascription.

Can your worldview be tested as to its usefulness in applied science--ANSWER: HELL NO. (but ours can Very Happy

)

Does your worldview have anything to offer in the theoretical---ANSWER:HELL NO (again ours can) Very Happy

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

As I said, we can get to within a few seconds of the BB initiation via leftover fragments of energy and the "domed" radial construction of the universe.

We know that fm.. You've said it often enough. Worded differently, for which much thanks.

The other few seconds are a bigger hill to climb than all the rest put together. And then some.

In fact, if you get around to getting to 0.001 seconds of the BB initiation you will be nearer but not all the way.

And going all the way is an evolutionary necessity.

0 Replies

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know