DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Yes, interesting link Set, and interesting quote from Shapiro:

Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Chemistry at New York University wrote:

Especially when compared with this quote:

Quote:
The member "real life" is asserting that replicating molecules could not have formed in the oceans. (And as usual, on no external authority, simply making a statement from authority, which is an authority we have no reason to assume he possesses.) However, it has long been known that certain clays, many of which form on the floors of oceans, both in inshore areas, and on continental shelf floors and on deep ocean floors, can bind prebiotic amino acids, and form peptide chains.

So? Do you think you've made some kind of important point? That does not alter the fact that substrate clays, in water, can bind pre-biotic amino acids to form peptide chains. I'm sure you'll recall, since you claim to understand so well the Shapiro article you cited, that Shapiro was discussing whether or not the "RNA world" hypothesis was plausible. He wasn't talking about DNA, he was talking about RNA. If what Shapiro speculates is correct, then it were never a question of DNA arising independently in "water," as it would have been preceded within living organisms by RNA.

It has been abundantly clear for quite some time that both the statements made by Shapiro and others, as well as the implications of their statements completely elude your understanding.

And he stated that the 'RNA world' scenario is NOT plausible.

Shapiro explicitly applies his conclusion to RNA and any proposed 'RNA substitutes'.

0 Replies

Yes, that's correct, he argued against the RNA world scenario--which is what i said, and have repeatedly pointed out, dipshit.

Your reading comprehension skills are appallingly poor. I often wonder how you obtained and continued gainful employment.

0 Replies

he he he he he he he he he . This is beginning to sound like Whos On First, with rl not quite getting the lineup.

0 Replies

It's beginning to sound like silly plonkers finding it more and more difficult to find something to say and even more difficult to say it in an original or stylish manner.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

raprap wrote:
Setana, reviewing the Edge document I was impressed with this reference to a Shapiro stance

Quote:
Biologist Robert Shapiro disagrees with scientists who believe that an extreme stroke of luck was needed to get life started in a non-living environment. He favors the idea that life arose through the normal operation of the laws of physics and chemistry. If he is right, then life may be widespread in the cosmos.

I also have this conviction--I feel that Shapiro is correct, life is not unique to this orb circling a second rate star in a minor arm of a backwater galaxy. Life is the rule in this universe, and not the exception. And from what I have learned about chemistry, and physics, and information technology life will be in essence a replicating code, and DNA/RNA is only one example of code replication.

Rap

The 'extreme stroke of luck' that is referred to , is the idea that a self replicating molecule assembled itself and then assembled an organism around itself.

The first part of your description is reasonably accurate The second part isn't really what we're saying at all.

Part 1: We're suggesting that after billions of years, in a planetful of oceans, a simple self-replicating molecule formed by chance after an immense number of chemical reactions. It would probably have used components formed in past chemical reactions.

Part 2: Here is where you are misquoting us. We're saying that once the molecule and its descendants existed, then natural selection took over, coupled with mutation, and over the long eons, very gradual improvement occurred, resulting eventually in life as we know it, including us.

0 Replies

You are including in "us", I presume, following c.i.'s logical rigour, Madame de Pompadour and the boys on the front row at the knickerless can-can, before it was closed down.

One really does have to hope that only the good folks like yourself are not the only component of the "us".

We would be in the **** if that was the case.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The 'extreme stroke of luck' that is referred to , is the idea that a self replicating molecule assembled itself and then assembled an organism around itself.

It is not simply hilarious that you don't get it, but that you are willing to lie about what Shapiro says. You quote him saying:

Quote:

The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck....

Shapiro does not say that it is an extremely stroke of luck that a self-replicating molecule assembled itself, nor does he say that it were an extreme stroke of luck that it "assembled an organism around itself."

You lie, you lie like a goddamned rug.

Shapiro is saying that it were an extreme stroke of luck if RNA were formed. He is more specific than just a self-replicating molecule, he refers to RNA. He does not once refer to any molecule assembling a living organism around itself.

You seem to be so thick that you don't understand that no chemical combination can be construed to be a living organism, unless there is a replication method possible. Shapiro speculates that given the high statistical probability of energetic small-molecule cells forming, that replication would occur through that high statistical probability, and which he explains with his shopping list metaphor.

You don't understand any of this, do you?

Stop with the lies, will ya, its bad enough that we can point out your lies, it's embarrassing for you when you lie and the evidence is in your own post.

0 Replies

Ya know, this gets very close to the very topic e were trying to dsicuss with RL over a year ago, when a number of us , and Timber, were involved. I recall, set, rosborne, ci, Timber, Brandon (I believe Wolf ) and I were throwing around the "NO RNA wasnt first, in fact it was a derivative of several attempts at boutique life"

I believe that it was in that evolution thread that (spendi?) got shut down for being a bit impolite (or was it gunga?)

DAYHZHA VOOOO

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I don't doubt that this would be the most reasonable way for a technological civilization to study its galactic environment. However, there are two problems with the implications of VN machines for people who haven't thought the thing through. The first is social (almost all science fiction and science speculation literature suffers from being socially, childishly naive). You're going to want to commit huge, really huge resources to such a project.

Once a VN machine were created, the cost of creating more of them would obviously be minimal. Something similar to making more cockroaches; simply give them raw materials and let them do their thing.

So the real question is whether or not there is an economic motivation to construct self-replicators, and as it turns out there's a strong one, and it's already in place and happening.

When I worked at Oracle one of the core goals of all of our network designs was to make them self monitoring and self correcting to the greatest extent possible. This isn't surprising because the cost of having people fix everything is very high, not to mention the productivity costs from having downtime while slow humans go about correcting terabyte servers running at gigabit speeds.

As technology becomes more complex and more valuable to maintaining our civilization it's economically and functionally imperative that we build in redundancy and self correction. And self replication is the ultimate form of redundancy and self correction. So there is clearly a strong economic imperative which leads directly to VN machines, completely independent of the need to use them for space exploration.

Just as in evolutionary biology where the original adaptations are used for one purpose, and later modified to perform a different function, so our machines will evolve into self replicators based on a economic and functional requirements, only later to be modified to solve different problems.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Our own Roswell wrote:
I would also point out that even without Von Neumann machines, all it would take is one single technological civilization (with a healthy desire to reproduce and the inclination to colonize), to cover an entire galaxy within 10 million years (even without suprauminal drives).

This suffers from the same naivete as Fermi's original question.

No it doesn't.

All I stated is a fact related to travel times and sizes. I also stated that I was assuming a technological civilization with the desire to colonize.

You followed with a whole slew of assumptions which may not apply to alien civilizations. How do you know they don't have a religious imperative which drives them to colonize at any societal cost. Or a biological imperative. You don't.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Shapiro is saying that it were an extreme stroke of luck if RNA were formed. He is more specific than just a self-replicating molecule, he refers to RNA.

He doesn't ONLY refer to RNA:

Robert Shapiro wrote:

I would extend this conclusion to all of the proposed RNA substitutes that I mentioned above.

His explicit rejection of ALL 'replicator first' scenarios is the very reason that he brings his 'small molecules' theory forward.

Hello?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Ya know, this gets very close to the very topic e were trying to dsicuss with RL over a year ago, when a number of us , and Timber, were involved. I recall, set, rosborne, ci, Timber, Brandon (I believe Wolf ) and I were throwing around the "NO RNA wasnt first, in fact it was a derivative of several attempts at boutique life"

I believe that it was in that evolution thread that (spendi?) got shut down for being a bit impolite (or was it gunga?)

DAYHZHA VOOOO

Yeah, and you didn't have any actual evidence that your 'derivative' had EVER actually existed when we discussed it then, either.

yep, ja devu alright Rolling Eyes

(ja devu means 'your jaw is making the same noise as I recall from previous encounters')

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
The 'extreme stroke of luck' that is referred to , is the idea that a self replicating molecule assembled itself and then assembled an organism around itself.

The first part of your description is reasonably accurate

perhaps you'd like to help some of your compadres understand that.

Shapiro and other award winning chemists that he cites explicitly reject the possibility.

Brandon9000 wrote:

The second part isn't really what we're saying at all......

Here is where you are misquoting us. We're saying that once the molecule and its descendants existed, then natural selection took over, coupled with mutation, and over the long eons, very gradual improvement occurred, resulting eventually in life as we know it, including us.

I know you feel rather uncomfortable when I describe the process in such terms, but perhaps it's because you see it for what it really is, an implausible, silly idea.

Try to picture generation after generation of replicating molecules , alone.

Gradually coming alongside are various structures and parts until voila! a living organism appears.

First of all, you must admit that (like DNA) any replicator that might form the basis for life (not that you have ANY evidence that one other than dna has EVER existed, mind you) is likely to be degraded and destroyed by the open environment LLLLLOOOOONNNNNGGGGG before the genesis of a living organism.

0 Replies

A SIMPLER ORIGIN FOR LIFE.

THOSE who dont have a vested interest in maintaining a position of obstinate dimmidity (such as Mr Life) will enjoy the article from 2007 Sci AM , in which Shapiro presents his thinking. His own hypothesis agrees with KAufman, CAirns SMith etc. He is a very witty guy who,no doubt would do marvelous shredding to RL's miscasting of his words.

I can only assume that Mr Life is busy working on his own biological theory of divinely prepared life. Talk about no evidence--.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

A SIMPLER ORIGIN FOR LIFE.

THOSE who dont have a vested interest in maintaining a position of obstinate dimmidity (such as Mr Life) will enjoy the article from 2007 Sci AM , in which Shapiro presents his thinking. His own hypothesis agrees with KAufman, CAirns SMith etc. He is a very witty guy who,no doubt would do marvelous shredding to RL's miscasting of his words.

Apparently you are unaware that this is the article we've been discussing and that I've provided links to several times.

uh......read the thread Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

well, by your own miscasting of the article, I was wondering whether or not you were quoting another predigested source. My only "back atcha" is that apparently your own comprehension is severely lacking .

I read that article when it came out last year . I recall you attempting to miscast it in a previous thread , so you havent learned anything yet eh?

Many are aware that your idea of analysis is to remove and discuss single lines of a paper , totally out Of Context and full of RL spin. This is just another article in which you are attempting to miscast it by discussing it line by line hoping that people will buy your bull ****.

Sorry, there are apparently no takers (well maybe you and the baddog).
While Shapiro attempts to be open and attempts to lay a foundation of his analysis of the origins of life on earth , (that are consistent with available records from the chemical stratigraphy that I was talking about previously). His analysis has led him to the conclusion that is his paper in SCi AM (and his previous volume on the same subject).

You, dishonest little scamp

0 Replies

yowser.

0 Replies

A SIMPLER ORIGIN FOR LIFE.

Do people actually read that stuff fm?

I gave it a blimp but when I arrived at "careful" I gave it up. I'm afraid I didn't get as far as the wit. I'll take your word for that fm.

Quote:

When he is not involved in research, lecturing or writing, he enjoys running, hiking, wine-tastings, theater and travel. He is married and has a 35-year-old son.

Not a pub man then eh? It's a narcissistic combination.

Steer clear is my advice.

0 Replies

Quote:

Do people actually read that stuff fm?

I admit that it takes an investment in time and preparation, and som e in tellectual hon esty to not try to recast what the author is clearly saying. Not too hard really.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
The 'extreme stroke of luck' that is referred to , is the idea that a self replicating molecule assembled itself and then assembled an organism around itself.

The first part of your description is reasonably accurate

perhaps you'd like to help some of your compadres understand that.

I didn't mean to endorse the idea that it would be an extreme stroke of luck, just the idea that a self-replicating molecule formed by chance after billions of years of chemical reactions.

real life wrote:

Shapiro and other award winning chemists that he cites explicitly reject the possibility.

Brandon9000 wrote:
The second part isn't really what we're saying at all......

Here is where you are misquoting us. We're saying that once the molecule and its descendants existed, then natural selection took over, coupled with mutation, and over the long eons, very gradual improvement occurred, resulting eventually in life as we know it, including us.

I know you feel rather uncomfortable when I describe the process in such terms, but perhaps it's because you see it for what it really is, an implausible, silly idea.

Try to picture generation after generation of replicating molecules , alone.

Gradually coming alongside are various structures and parts until voila! a living organism appears.

First of all, you must admit that (like DNA) any replicator that might form the basis for life (not that you have ANY evidence that one other than dna has EVER existed, mind you) is likely to be degraded and destroyed by the open environment LLLLLOOOOONNNNNGGGGG before the genesis of a living organism.

First of all, no one is remotely suggesting, or has ever remotely suggested, that DNA formed spontaneously. We are talking about a much simpler self-replicating molecule. Furthermore, there is no sharp transition from non-life to life. All we're saying is that slowly, the complexity of the molecule's descendants increased. One might arbitrarily define a threshold between life and non-life.

In order to have a chance at being the winner of a debate, one must, at a minimum, be able to repeat the opposition viewpoint reasonably correctly, which you have consistently failed to do. Much of your argument consists of misrepresenting our position.

0 Replies

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know