DNA Was Designed By A Mind

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.

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.

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.

In reality, we have no evidence that real life even exists. Therefor since he has presented no evidence of his existence he does not exist.

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.

In short, we are not free to disagree with Shapiro, but he is.

Setanta wrote:

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.

That is correct. And I've never stated otherwise.

Setanta wrote:

In short, we are not free to disagree with Shapiro, but he is.

Disagree with him all you wish. But first understand his view and represent it correctly, which you've been rather slow to do, but you're coming 'round because you've been forced to it.

Setanta wrote:

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.

That is correct. And I've never stated otherwise.

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.

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:

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."

Setanta wrote:

In short, we are not free to disagree with Shapiro, but he is.

Disagree with him all you wish. But first understand his view and represent it correctly, which you've been rather slow to do, but you're coming 'round because you've been forced to it.

I think we can all agree that award winning chemists disagree with you real life.

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....

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....

This is actually one of RL's most interesting statements, and it illustrates one of his fundamental disconnects. What we're saying is that a self-replicating molecule evolved until its descendants reached a stage where one might choose to call them life. It looks like he thinks evolutionists are saying that it evolved until some life essence passed into it. Something like that. This is a subtle but important failure to understand what we're claiming. Maybe I'm misinterpreting him, but his phraseology here is strange.

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

Quote:

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

WHen you post your position , then we can talk about lack or presence of evidence. Dont be a schmuck and try to mount some hillock . I cannot understand your very point of discussion. You see that Shapiro doesnt deny the "small steps" hypothesis. You seem to default that to a Creationist beleif without any form of evidence, just some fairy tales.

Ive talked about the relationship o the C12 crystal structures that are similar to pyridines and purines and contain short chain and then longer chain C`12's. A rationale, objective observer would admit that this is a compelling direction for life to have been assembled in successive stages or even sudden changes at intermittent nodal points.
You seem to have your own head up your butt and wish to merely propound some lame argument that RNA could be dissociated in water. Of course, any molecule, unattached to a membrane and driven by a suitable respiratory mechanism, will dissociate. You, however, take that to a ridiculous extreme that seems to deny any other mechanisms.

The fact that we dont see any RNA is the sediments, but do see evidence of simple living "molecular symbionts" and these are evidence of the rise of life from a very humble beginning.

The difference tween us RL is that a number of us are fscinated with the possibilities and the directions that such forensic data leads us. If there were a God, wed expect his own evidence to be shown. Instead of the humble rise of life as evidenced in the fossil record, wed see some point wherein all things suddenly appear. Since that is clearly not thecase, we look for explanations thatmatch the existing evidence.

You, on the other hand, try to cherry pick" data so you can fill it in to your predigested worldview.
Those in science will continue to carry on without your "guidance" since we too move in little steps of understanding. Im amazed at how your worldview requires you to deny all involvement in intellectual fishing and model making, and instead , you have to make sure that nothing interferes with your Biblical myths.

No matter what, Ive gotta admire your "faith", but on the same hand, i wonder how disengenuous your beleif system really is. SInce you have a God whose a builder and aimparter of brain power to all his subjects, yet on the same hand, you worship this God by rolling around in stubborn ignorance and involve yourself in arguments taht really dont advance an argument one way or another,but are merely stop measures to keep science from attempting to move along.
Im not laughing at you like the others, however I really find you quite a bit creepy lately.

hmmm, how can anyone respond to 'you're creepy because you don't agree with my interpretation of evidence' ?

I've cited reputable scientists who argue that the likelihood of an independent self replicating molecule ( a replicator developed outside of a living organism, i.e. in the open environment) 'appearing randomly' are so astronomical as to be 'beyond the realm of scientific inquiry'.