DNA Was Designed By A Mind

real life doesn't believe in evolution ros.

I'd be surprised if he even believes in DNA and RNA.

I know. That was my point.

It's even worse than that, RL doesn't believe in science and in humanity's ability to understand the world around us. The very nature of the Creationist mindset is a surrender to ignorance. It's an implicit acceptance of an inferior and ultimately hopeless position in the scheme of things. It's pitiful, and it's a dangerous and debilitating corruption of the human spirit. Other than that, it's ok.

I don't doubt the existence of a replicator. It's called dna.

The replicator is RNA. See RNA

RNA is a single stranded translates the information of the double stranded DNA protein polymer.

Rap

There are people who are so presumptuous that they know no other way to praise a greatness that they publicly admire than by representing it as a preliminary stage and bridge leading to themselves.

what appears to be an argument about whether DNA/xNA's were "created" is actually a cross check on scientifc literacy. Im smiling since the entire argument is able to be boiled down to
'Because of the (assumed) complexity of the xNA molecule, it must have been created by an intelligence"

If that were the case then, several factors must also be taken into consideration since they impact the structures of the living state. That is, all the following must be sub -units of some cosmic intelligence

1a habit for lateral growth and chirality of the "living state" molecule-
All present information carrying molecules are totally linear, as opposed to clumping.

2The substrate upon which i9t all was assembled must be special

3Use of basic organo chems that add to the development of the living state "polymer" (such as polysaccharides, monosacharides, polyphosphates, and organo /crytal substrates) . These must also be part of the plan

4 a tendancy away from non lateral growth of the living molecule(very important to not have "budding" off to one side to screw up the linerity and chirality.

Having said that, there are bazillions of natural chemicals that could fit these requisites and , like montmorrilonite clay, are not "Created" but are products of hydrolysis of feldspars that were produced by volcanic action in the earth.
When feldspars get wet introduced within their monoclinic crystals, they form (less ordered) platy crystals that look like long acicular "needles" with crystal ridges (sorta like those licorice candies that were tube shaped with lateral ridges on the sides)-These clays have strong surface reaction sites wherever PH differences and collapsing layers occur. SO polymers can assemble, form on the clays and be stored there . Scxientists have found that several of these (in a mixing "Bowl") will assemble and TRANSFER their structure across to another clay that is assembling a similar polymer. I must recall that Richard DAwkins definition of a gene is NOT defined based upon a particular chemiocal molecule (which is where Mr Life is all confused-He wants the highest order of information transfer to be his [and by inference, ours] STARTING POINT) Thats not the case. SCience is waaaay beyond this argument about DNA. It's long been recognized the physical chemistry of the biotic state is governed by rather mundane (As opposed to mysteriously magic) happenings. We know that life relies upon collapsing double layers, dual chirality, polymerization, surface chemistry, van der Waals, Weak surface forces, hydrolysis, and clay mineralization tendencies. AND last but not least THE MOTHER F**KIN LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS.

I wish I could have saved Timeberland's very good list of sources on the major issues and proto chemicals that he found one day when we were beating up RL in a "love fest" They were outstanding summary sources by our own master exegete.
Timber gave a good account for several hypotheses of the development of lateral state "Message transmitters" from ancient polymers and also, he presented another line of reasoning from the phospholipid guys , about the very origin of the cell wall and the assembly of vacuoles, nucleii etc (Something Ive always considered to be more fascinating than DNA assembly, which is only a two dimensional game)

Geochemists see proto -xNA -like molecules every day. the structural affinities of most all clays is plates and needles and they "carry along" all sorts of organic molecules that dont require pooficity at all, or the intervention of some cosmic assembler.

One interesting thing is that the recent MArs mission (rovers) had defined Sulphitic clays and sodium clays that were present in the martian soil and in those little "blueberries" DId the
"Great Assemblor" take time to jigger with these biddy molecules too?

Earlier you said that DNA could not have evolved in the open environment because it would break down. I think most of us agree.

If that rules out DNA, and if you still "don't doubt the existence of a replicator", then the only conclusion is that there must have been a "different" replicator.

So RL is actually paying us all a very great compliment.

farmerman wants to insist that a self replicating molecule that leads eventually to a living critter could indeed assemble itself.

Award winning chemists like Shapiro say it ain't happening.

fm likes to cast this argument as science vs. RL, but this isn't the case.

If only the pesky need for evidence of fm's claim could be dispensed with.

Then he could really claim victory instead of actually being required to show that a self replicating molecule other than dna/rna had EVER actually been the basis for a living organism.

Wrong.

Mr Life, trying to claim superiority in authority-ship states

"Award winning " chemists also write in a fashion that most people understand-apparently you dont. You miss his entire point. But thats only me adding my voice to the several others whove pointed this out to you ad nauseum.

Hint: read Shapiro' s articles again and see whether you cant get the real point from it.

Instead, As you are fond of doing , your habit of debate includes only the following:

1extract the smallest lines from sources that, out of context, appear to be fact

2dont extract anything but present your own interpretations of what someone else says.

(LIKE you just did with my post-)

If you deny the entire realm of science to adhere to your worldview, WHY NOT just sit with your like-minded compadres and convince each other, your having no luck here. All youre doing is showing how ign orance can lead to illogical assemblages of silly facts, and (IMHO) dumass conclusions that are based totally upon an unquestioning acceptance of one source of interpretation.

Mr Life


Then Id be no different than you are RL. I know that youd be hitting us with all kinds of evidence if you had any, SO now , you want to dismiss those of us held to a higher accountability by requiring evidence before we hitch onto a worldvie.
I guess Ill "stick" with the need for that "pesky" evidence. Intellectual Honesty and all that.

I'd only dissent far enough to observe that the "source" upon which the member "real life" relies is a source of what is alleged to be "revealed truth," and not a methodology with which to interpret anything. The entire point of holy writ is that one accept it as written (and interpreted by official bear leaders) or be damned.

morning fuzz face, rain gods been kind to us in Pa. We got some needed wetness. Mustve been the sacrifice of the fatted calves that did it.

did I say fatted calves? I meant fatted swine(even though they are unclean)

I've never been dismayed by split hooves, split infinitives or split atoms, so long as they all occur in their proper times and places.

What about the splits at the Can-Can Settin'?

Hooves, infinitives and atoms are for those with a theoretical bent.

Witty what?

heres a series of papers by similarly "award winning" geo chemists and molecular biologists.2005 ELEMENTS magazine special edition on prebiotic world and origins of life from the "sweet crystal" hypothesis

The father , Cairns SMith, has been dismissed because of an original lack of evidence in the 1970's and its all coming about . Also, you get a free copy of Elements, a trade jopurnal for minrlogy and economic geo. I hope you have high speed. Otherwise itll take a week to download

There's an alternative to downloading it fm. It only takes a second or two.

Re: DNA Was Designed By A Mind


It gets easier when you limit yourself to what the evidence actually dictates. The original DNA/RNA system is clearly the work of a single pair of hands. Information codes do not just sort of happen.


Nonetheless when you get to some sort of a period a few thousand or a couple of tens of thousands of years back more or less, the engineering and re-engineering of complex life forms on this planet had become some sort of a cottage industry with more than one pair of hands involved.

There is, for instance, no reasonable way to picture a well-intentioned and supposedly omnipotent God creating ticks, mosquitoes, biting flies, disease organisms, and the sundry creatures of Pandora's box. Whoever created those things is not anybody we need to worship.