DNA Was Designed By A Mind

What makes a chemical "dead?"

What evidence do you have that living organisms must have RNA or DNA? (Hint: you're going to have a real problem explaining prions.)

It is not just completely false to say that Shapiro has "abandoned" such a line of investigation, it is an outright lie, because as the article which you cited shows, Shapiro is speculating about possible replicative mechanisms occurring before RNA arose.

What evidence do you have that scientists whom you characterize as being those FM "hoped" would be working on this line of inquiry all take the same view as Shapiro. After all, if the "RNA world" hypothesis were marginal, or had been abandoned, there would be no reason for Shapiro to argue against it. Furthermore, it is entirely plausible that those who have rejected the "RNA world" hypothesis would be precisely those who would be working to find out what replicating chemical or what replicating mechanism might have preceded the rise of RNA.

Quote:

The odds of a self replicating molecule that can support life being able to self generate are simply astronomical, beyond believability.

This is a statement from authority on your part, one for which you have no authority. Your quote of Shapiro only refers to to the probability that RNA would have arisen and survived prior to the existence of a living organism. It is no less than a bald-faced lie to say that Shapiro was denying the possibility that a self-replicating molecule could "self-generate." You make **** up, and cite a source which you clearly either do not understand or about which you are prepared to lie--and you don't even do it very well.

***********************************************

More important, however, is that you keep attempting to make people disprove an hilarious proposition. What plausible evidence can your provide that DNA was designed by a mind? That is, after all, the burden of this thread.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
No one has suggested that RNA or anything like it suddenly appeared. We have been talking about a much smaller and simpler first replicator.

Actually, chemists like Shapiro AREN'T looking for a 'first replicator' leading to life because they consider it akin to believing in miracles.

Shapiro hopes that he can show that simple self replicating molecules FOLLOWED the establishment of life, not preceded it.

Whatever, stop saying that we're claiming that DNA or RNA formed randomly. We're talking about something much simpler.

The reason I have used dna/rna as examples is that you have NO evidence that any other self replicating molecule that can support life has EVER existed.

So to even speak of them is little more than speculation. It surely isn't science to say that they 'had to have existed'.

Do you agree with Shapiro that the idea of even a simple replicator (what he called an RNA substitute) forming in the open environment is not plausible?

Or do you have a better grasp of the chemistry that is needed than he?

First of all, it just doesn't seem implausible to me that after billions of years of random chemical reactions, in a planetfull of oceans, one single self-replicating molecule would form.

First of all, you don't have billions of years to play with.

Even if we accept your timeline, first life has to be established BEFORE the first 1 billion years of Earth's existence.

Also, Earth's oceans would've been likely frozen during much of the early history due to the lack of heat coming from a faint young sun.

The open ocean is probably the worst environment you could've picked for your replicator to arrive , survive and thrive.

The same environment that would've produced it would be it's biggest enemy.

Today's oceans should be teeming with such replicators if your hypothesis is true.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Your quote of Shapiro only refers to to the probability that RNA would have arisen and survived prior to the existence of a living organism.

That is correct.

Do I have to restate the context every single time for you?

I would've thought it unnecessary to do so if you had followed the thread and read Shapiro's article.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
The odds of a self replicating molecule that can support life being able to self generate are simply astronomical, beyond believability.

No one has ever suggested such a thing. We're suggesting that a simple self-replicating chemical appeared randomly, and that over a long period of time, natural selection and mutation increased its complexity until it reached a stage where one might call it life.

Funny how you say 'no one has suggested that' and then restate what I've said.

What distinction are you trying to draw between a replicator 'self generating' and a replicator 'appearing randomly' ?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

First of all, you don't have billions of years to play with.

Even if we accept your timeline, first life has to be established BEFORE the first 1 billion years of Earth's existence.

Also, Earth's oceans would've been likely frozen during much of the early history due to the lack of heat coming from a faint young sun.

The open ocean is probably the worst environment you could've picked for your replicator to arrive , survive and thrive.

The same environment that would've produced it would be it's biggest enemy.

Today's oceans should be teeming with such replicators if your hypothesis is true.

Another series of statements from authority, for which you have no authority. Your faint young sun hypothesis has a problem, which is that it is contradicted by the geological evidence of sedimentary rock formations which date back to the period when it is alleged that the "faint young sun" would have guaranteed that all surface water froze. Quite apart from that, the "faint young sun paradox" can only be sustained by assuming that the atmospheric composition of the early earth was the same four billion years ago as it is now. That's an hilarious assumption--did you get your "faint young sun" argument at one of your brain-dead creationist web sites? Even surface water froze at some early point, the inorganic carbon cycle would shut down, meaning that any vulcanism which released carbon dioxide and methane (a feature of the early earth that you cannot deny on any scientific basis) would increase atmospheric greenhouse gases so rapidly and so dramatically that the greenhouse effect would melt the frozen seas.

Quite apart from that, freezing does not necessarily prevent organic chemical reactions, nor preclude the existence of living organisms. There are living bacteria which inhabit Antarctica . . . oh yeah, your bobble doesn't mention Antarctica, so it must no be real.

What an idiot.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
The odds of a self replicating molecule that can support life being able to self generate are simply astronomical, beyond believability.

No one has ever suggested such a thing. We're suggesting that a simple self-replicating chemical appeared randomly, and that over a long period of time, natural selection and mutation increased its complexity until it reached a stage where one might call it life.

That's what I was going to say Wink

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Your quote of Shapiro only refers to to the probability that RNA would have arisen and survived prior to the existence of a living organism.

That is correct.

Do I have to restate the context every single time for you?

I would've thought it unnecessary to do so if you had followed the thread and read Shapiro's article.

What a f*ckin' moron. That means that Shapiro is not talking about any other putative replicative chemical or mechanism, which makes you a big fat liar.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
The odds of a self replicating molecule that can support life being able to self generate are simply astronomical, beyond believability.

No one has ever suggested such a thing. We're suggesting that a simple self-replicating chemical appeared randomly, and that over a long period of time, natural selection and mutation increased its complexity until it reached a stage where one might call it life.

Funny how you say 'no one has suggested that' and then restate what I've said.

What distinction are you trying to draw between a replicator 'self generating' and a replicator 'appearing randomly' ?

The distinction he's making is between a replicator which "can support life" and a replicator which simply replicates. I thought Brandon's comment was pretty clear, but you obviously missed the point.

Your ability to selectively miss the point in almost everything you read is really impressive.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

What makes a chemical "dead?"

We could start with the fact that it's not alive.

Setanta wrote:

What evidence do you have that living organisms must have RNA or DNA? (Hint: you're going to have a real problem explaining prions.)

Don't know much about prions, but I don't think they are considered living organisms, but simply corrosive proteins. Could be wrong about that, and I'd be glad to discuss it.

0 Replies

I have been following this thread carefully, since it began, and in fact, since before that liar "real life" posted here. I also read Shapiro's article, more than once, and therefore i know that "real life" is willfully mischaracterizing what Shapiro wrote.

real life wrote:

The odds of a self replicating molecule that can support life being able to self generate are simply astronomical, beyond believability.

Shapiro cites in agreement:

Quote:
Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve has called for "a rejection of improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry."

Shapiro referred only to RNA--and he definitely did not state at any time that there were astronomical odds against any self-replicating molecule "self-generating." That's one of the reasons we've been discussing peptides forming in substrate clays. So, either you're incredibly stupid, or, you're just a . . .

Liar

and, into the bargain, a . . .

Moron.

Personally, i think both statements describe you.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
The odds of a self replicating molecule that can support life being able to self generate are simply astronomical, beyond believability.

No one has ever suggested such a thing. We're suggesting that a simple self-replicating chemical appeared randomly, and that over a long period of time, natural selection and mutation increased its complexity until it reached a stage where one might call it life.

Funny how you say 'no one has suggested that' and then restate what I've said.

What distinction are you trying to draw between a replicator 'self generating' and a replicator 'appearing randomly' ?

The distinction he's making is between a replicator which "can support life" and a replicator which simply replicates. I thought Brandon's comment was pretty clear, but you obviously missed the point.

Your ability to selectively miss the point in almost everything you read is really impressive.

Brandon admits that his replicator must support life.

If you are only trying to emphasize the timeline involved, I think that Shapiro and others who have rejected the 'replicator first' or 'RNA world' scenario understand very well that a timeline is implied , and they still find it woefully inadequate to produce what is needed to support life.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
What makes a chemical "dead?"

We could start with the fact that it's not alive.

Which is to say, that you want to make tendentious statements which are meaningless in the context of the discussion, but which tend to have emotive effects on anyone not very well informed who reads the drivel you post.

What makes a chemical alive?

Setanta wrote:

What evidence do you have that living organisms must have RNA or DNA? (Hint: you're going to have a real problem explaining prions.)

Don't know much about prions, but I don't think they are considered living organisms, but simply corrosive proteins. Could be wrong about that, and I'd be glad to discuss it.[/quote]

What evidence do you offer that prions are not living organisms? Do you knows how they replicate? Are you personally qualified to determine what qualifies as a definition of living organism, and what doesn't?

Is your reliance upon creationist web sites going to sustain you through a detailed debate? Your reliance upon a single article by Shapiro has failed you time and again as you have been obliged to lie outright about what Shapiro has written.

0 Replies

Hey, "real life," what evidence do you have that DNA was designed by a mind?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I have been following this thread carefully, since it began, and in fact, since before that liar "real life" posted here. I also read Shapiro's article, more than once, and therefore i know that "real life" is willfully mischaracterizing what Shapiro wrote.

real life wrote:
The odds of a self replicating molecule that can support life being able to self generate are simply astronomical, beyond believability.

Shapiro cites in agreement:

Quote:
Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve has called for "a rejection of improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry."

Shapiro referred only to RNA--and he definitely did not state at any time that there were astronomical odds against any self-replicating molecule "self-generating."

Shapiro applied his conclusion to RNA and any proposed RNA substitute, as you know.

0 Replies

Quote:

Shapiro applied his conclusion to RNA and any proposed RNA substitute, as you know.

I know nothing of the kind. Please provide a quote in which Shapiro refers specifically to "any proposed RNA substitute."

Quite apart from that, Shapiro is not the god of biochemistry. As incredible as it may be to someone like you, who believes that eternal truths can be know simply by reading them, there are many people with equally impressive credentials who don't agree with him.

It seems that you have substituted Shapiro for holy writ, and give to a single article by Shapiro the same reverence as you do the bobble.

This is fundamentally dishonest of you, however, since you don't agree with a single f*cking thing that Shapiro writes because it contradicts your witless biblical version of events.

Liar

Moron

0 Replies

Hey, "real life," what evidence do you have that DNA was designed by a mind?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Quote:
Shapiro applied his conclusion to RNA and any proposed RNA substitute, as you know.

I know nothing of the kind. Please provide a quote in which Shapiro refers specifically to "any proposed RNA substitute."

Wipe the spittle off your screen and read the article.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Quote:
Shapiro applied his conclusion to RNA and any proposed RNA substitute, as you know.

I know nothing of the kind. Please provide a quote in which Shapiro refers specifically to "any proposed RNA substitute."

Wipe the spittle off your screen and read the article.

Provide the quote.

0 Replies

Hey, "real life," what evidence do you have that DNA was designed by a mind?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Quote:
Shapiro applied his conclusion to RNA and any proposed RNA substitute, as you know.

I know nothing of the kind. Please provide a quote in which Shapiro refers specifically to "any proposed RNA substitute."

Wipe the spittle off your screen and read the article.

Provide the quote.

Unless you are proposing a new one that he hasn't heard about, the quote I've previously provided (and which is familiar to anyone who has read the article) is sufficient.

0 Replies

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know