DNA Was Designed By A Mind

One thing I worry about, is that this could very well be true.

Why would some other being design DNA, and us?

Are we a food supply?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

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

Shapiro concluded that life doesn't require DNA or RNA to be life. Something you have rejected.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

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.

Judging by your emotional responses, you speak from experience.

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
What makes a chemical "dead?"

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

What makes a chemical alive?

I never said a chemical was alive, I said it wasn't.

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
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.

What evidence do you offer that prions are not living organisms?

I've offered no evidence that they are or aren't. You've implied that they are and if you can substantiate it , do so. I've stated my opinion based on what little I've read on that particular subject.

Setanta wrote:

Is your reliance upon creationist web sites going to sustain you through a detailed debate?

In fact, I seldom visit creationist web sites.

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 first molecule didn't "support life," it just had descendants that gradually became more complex over the eons until one might choose to refer to it as life.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

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

Shapiro concluded that life doesn't require DNA or RNA to be life. Something you have rejected.

I acknowledge that to be his opinion. There's no proof of it, however.

I find his speculation on 'garbage bag' replication (i.e. reliance on physical forces to split the organism) to be pretty funny.

In general, I'd say that any living organism without a replicative mechanism built in will have a very short family line.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 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 first molecule didn't "support life," it just had descendants that gradually became more complex over the eons until one might choose to refer to it as life.

Yes, I understand and Shapiro understands (he's quite familiar with all the 'RNA world' scenarios and substitutes that have been advanced) that you are referring to an independent molecule that 'gradually evolves' until it can support life.

And he has abandoned that line of research as being exceedingly improbable.

The only scenario in which he sees a replicator (sufficient to support life) evolving is in an already living organism, a 'metabolism first' scenario as he has described it.

The likelihood of your replicator 'appearing randomly' or evolving in the open environment (whether in the ocean or in the mud) is what he rejects.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:

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

Shapiro concluded that life doesn't require DNA or RNA to be life. Something you have rejected.

I acknowledge that to be his opinion. There's no proof of it, however.

I find his speculation on 'garbage bag' replication (i.e. reliance on physical forces to split the organism) to be pretty funny.

In general, I'd say that any living organism without a replicative mechanism built in will have a very short family line.

So are you saying Shapiro proposed life with no replicative ability? Or are you saying that the only replicative ability is RNA/DNA? Did Shapiro restrict his replication to RNA/DNA?

Because your argument certainly doesn't square with what Shapiro actually said.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 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 first molecule didn't "support life," it just had descendants that gradually became more complex over the eons until one might choose to refer to it as life.

Yes, I understand and Shapiro understands (he's quite familiar with all the 'RNA world' scenarios and substitutes that have been advanced) that you are referring to an independent molecule that 'gradually evolves' until it can support life.

And he has abandoned that line of research as being exceedingly improbable.

The only scenario in which he sees a replicator (sufficient to support life) evolving is in an already living organism, a 'metabolism first' scenario as he has described it.

Shapiro doesn't say that at all. Are you now saying that Shapiro doesn't state his life forms without RNA/DNA replicate and evolve?

Quote:

The likelihood of your replicator 'appearing randomly' or evolving in the open environment (whether in the ocean or in the mud) is what he rejects.

And you reject everything Shapiro said other than that one statement taken out of context of his entire article. Of course "your replicator" is pretty fuzzy since you just make up what you think Brandon said instead of listening to his explanations.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon admits that his replicator must support life.

More specifically he's saying (exactly what he said)...

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

real life wrote:

If you are only trying to emphasize the timeline involved

Nope, you missed the point again. Bzzzzt, thanks for playing the game.

real life wrote:

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.

Then you would be wrong (again).

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 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 first molecule didn't "support life," it just had descendants that gradually became more complex over the eons until one might choose to refer to it as life.

Yes, I understand and Shapiro understands (he's quite familiar with all the 'RNA world' scenarios and substitutes that have been advanced) that you are referring to an independent molecule that 'gradually evolves' until it can support life.

And he has abandoned that line of research as being exceedingly improbable.

The only scenario in which he sees a replicator (sufficient to support life) evolving is in an already living organism, a 'metabolism first' scenario as he has described it.

The likelihood of your replicator 'appearing randomly' or evolving in the open environment (whether in the ocean or in the mud) is what he rejects.

First of all, I have no idea what you mean by "support life." When the molecule's descendants reach some level of complexity, we might want to use the word "life" to describe them.

Secondly, given that a self-replicating molecule existed, evolution to something more complex would be inevitable because of the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

given that a self-replicating molecule existed, evolution to something more complex would be inevitable because of the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation.

Not necessarily.

Evolution is directionless. It does not necessitate that the 'goal' is more complexity, but only what tends to insure survival.

That could be a more complex arrangement; or it could be a less complex arrangement.

0 Replies

real life,

So.. evolution tends to favor that which is more likely to "insure" survival.

DNA is the replicator that is most likely to "insure" survival vs some unknown replicator.

If DNA is more complex and is more likely to ensure survival do you think the more complex or the less complex would have been more likely to survive?

"Not necessarily" would not be the correct answer.

0 Replies

In Brandon's scenario, an independent replicator evolves in the open ocean.

Since water would degrade and destroy dna, it is arguable whether or not dna is the 'more survivable'.

More survivable than what?

oh that's right , you don't know because no other self replicating molecule is known to have EVER been the basis for a living organism apart from dna/rna, right?

So your thesis is essentially unfalsifiable. No matter the objection, your comeback is 'well the replicator that I[/u][/i] envision could do that! '

Let's talk about it after[/u][/i] you have some evidence for your view, shall we?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Judging by your emotional responses, you speak from experience.

I haven't responded emotionally--that's just more of your bullshit, through which you hope to avoid facing the failure of your argument, by a diversion. I'm happy as a clam, this is one of the most entertaining threads currently running.

real life wrote:

I never said a chemical was alive, I said it wasn't.

Either there is a corollary, dead chemicals on the one hand and live chemicals on the other, or it's a meaningless description. That's what i was pointing out--you just described chemicals as "dead" for the emotive value of the statement, and not because it has any bearing on the debate.

real life wrote:

I've offered no evidence that they are or aren't. You've implied that they are and if you can substantiate it , do so. I've stated my opinion based on what little I've read on that particular subject.

So, as you have no evidence about prions, you have no basis upon which to assert that for an organism to alive, it must have DNA or RNA.

Quote:

In fact, I seldom visit creationist web sites.

Perhaps you should, then you might come up with a better class of argument. Not a good argument, to be sure--but better than you have been doing.

0 Replies

Here, let me bring up a tedious little matter--the subject of the thread:

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

0 Replies

The member "real life" is amused by the "garbage bag" metaphor (which is Freeman Dyson's work, not Shapiro's). It is certainly politic for him to take such a stance, because by the time Shapiro gets to it, he is prepared to contradict exactly what "real life" would like to claim he means. Shapiro describes five conditions for the small molecule, "metabolism first" scenario to work. In the fifth section, he mentions Dyson's "garbage bag" metaphor, and at the end of that section he writes:

Quote:

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. (emphasis added)

This is where "real life" gets into trouble. He doesn't want to buy the entire package, because that would entail acknowledging what Shapiro clearly states, that life emerges from nonliving matter. He is quick to say that he agrees with some of what Shapiro writes, but not all of it. In essence, he only wants to "agree" with Shapiro to the extent of his attempt to twist what Shapiro has written into a statement that life cannot arise from "dead chemicals."

But Shapiro's exposition of his hypothesis is a unitary work. Shapiro did not intend to provide evidence that life cannot arise from nonliving matter, quite the reverse, he's imagining exactly how life could plausibly arise form nonliving matter.

A truly hilarious aspect of all of this is that "real life" tries to use Shapiro's credentials to browbeat us into submission, tries to claim that he has a preeminent scientist on his side in the debate. But at the same time, he wishes to say that he agrees with some things and not with others. In short, we are not free to disagree with Shapiro, but he is. What makes it hilarious is the thought that "real life" has anything like the grasp of science needed to dissent from the opinion of anyone here, never mind Shapiro.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

In Brandon's scenario, an independent replicator evolves in the open ocean.

Since water would degrade and destroy dna, it is arguable whether or not dna is the 'more survivable'.

More survivable than what?

oh that's right , you don't know because no other self replicating molecule is known to have EVER been the basis for a living organism apart from dna/rna, right?

So your thesis is essentially unfalsifiable. No matter the objection, your comeback is 'well the replicator that I[/u][/i] envision could do that! '

Let's talk about it after[/u][/i] you have some evidence for your view, shall we?

Do you mean like you have evidence for your view? Whatever our theory is worth, yours is worth much, much less. You simply ignore every request that you present a particle of evidence for your theory. At least we have the exact mechanics down and some evidence for some of it, which is more that you can claim. You're claiming that it is impossible for any self-replicating molecule to be able to survice in aqueous solution, for which you have no evidence.

0 Replies

To continue the debate with RL soon makes one realize that he really doesnt even understand what he doesnt understand. Its a shame but youre playing "Das Ring des Niebelungen" to a groundhog. Wegave him what SHapiro really meant, weve given him examples of replicating molecules,

Hes merely trying to keep up a dying point , and its obvious he wont answer the initial point of the entire thread.

His use of incredulity to drive his point doesnt have any weight of evidence. Hes already admitted that he takes a supernatural position on all of this so certainly , he dare NOT look todeeply. So, therefore, RL's entire mission is one of

1Ignorance

2Faith in aproposition that, by the way, is contained nowhere in his "guidebook of the world"

RL belongs with the short list o serious minded but dead ass wrong habitues of the A2K Creation Crowd.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

His use of incredulity to drive his point doesnt have any weight of evidence.

Your objection to 'my' use of incredulity is a smokescreen from you to cover YOUR LACK of evidence on this issue.

It is Shapiro and other award winning chemists who describe the 'RNA world' scenario (replicator first) as implausible and 'akin to believing in miracles' and 'beyond the realm of science'.

If you have evidence that an independent self replicating molecule actually 'appeared randomly' , evolved and eventually led to living organisms.....produce it.

If you have ANY evidence that ANY self replicating molecule other than dna/rna has EVER been the basis of any living organism......produce it.

None, eh? That's what I thought.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

In Brandon's scenario, an independent replicator evolves in the open ocean.

Since water would degrade and destroy dna, it is arguable whether or not dna is the 'more survivable'.

Where did the "open ocean" come from. Read my statement. I said nothing about the open ocean. A first replicator that creates life and then evolves to DNA is NOT the open ocean. Even you can't expect anyone to think I ever claimed the "open ocean" was life.

Quote:

More survivable than what?

More survivable than the replicator that preceded DNA.

Quote:

oh that's right , you don't know because no other self replicating molecule is known to have EVER been the basis for a living organism apart from dna/rna, right?

Really? I guess you didn't read Shapiro, did you?
I see you didn't "name" the replicating molecule that you say didn't exist.

Quote:

So your thesis is essentially unfalsifiable. No matter the objection, your comeback is 'well the replicator that I[/u][/i] envision could do that! '

I didn't envision it. Shapiro did. Are you saying you don't agree with anything Shapiro said?

Quote:

Let's talk about it after[/u][/i] you have some evidence for your view, shall we?

How about we just talk about your lack of evidence of when it comes to Shapiro being with agreement with you on any point.

0 Replies

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know