DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Which is simply more evidence of your desire to discuss anything but the actual topic of the thread. It doesn't matter if you've distorted the meaning of what a single reputable scientist wrote (and you've cited only Shapiro)--whether or not a replicator such as RNA arose independently of a living organism or within a living organism has absolutely no relevance to the topic of the thread.

It does not provide evidence that DNA was "designed" by a mind. You have provided absolutely no evidence that DNA was "designed" by a mind. Small wonder that you're desperate to discuss just about anything else but the topic of the thread.

So far, nobody has given any evidence that any self replicating molecule other than dna/rna has EVER been the basis of ANY living organism.

real life wrote:

So far, nobody has given any evidence that any self replicating molecule other than dna/rna has EVER been the basis of ANY living organism.

I've given it at least twice now, and you've ignored it both times.

You're a Creationist.

Setanta wrote:

Which is simply more evidence of your desire to discuss anything but the actual topic of the thread. It doesn't matter if you've distorted the meaning of what a single reputable scientist wrote (and you've cited only Shapiro)--whether or not a replicator such as RNA arose independently of a living organism or within a living organism has absolutely no relevance to the topic of the thread.

It does not provide evidence that DNA was "designed" by a mind. You have provided absolutely no evidence that DNA was "designed" by a mind. Small wonder that you're desperate to discuss just about anything else but the topic of the thread.

I've noted several times that Shapiro cites other well credentialed chemists who agree with him.

But you've chosen to ignore that as well. Unfortunately this is very typical of your closed ear approach. Pretend they didn't say it and they didn't, right?

The origin of a self replicating molecule that can (and did) support life has a direct bearing on the topic of the thread. And if you think it doesn't you're certainly free to discuss anything you wish with whomever you wish.

So far, nobody has given any evidence that any self replicating molecule other than dna/rna has EVER been the basis of ANY living organism. So, if it's evidence you want to discuss, that's where it's at.

If it's speculation that you're into, then we can continue to hash out the issue of ANOTHER unknown replicator preceding dna.

But there's no evidence for that.

What would you like to talk about , Set?

Setanta wrote:

Which is simply more evidence of your desire to discuss anything but the actual topic of the thread. It doesn't matter if you've distorted the meaning of what a single reputable scientist wrote (and you've cited only Shapiro)--whether or not a replicator such as RNA arose independently of a living organism or within a living organism has absolutely no relevance to the topic of the thread.

It does not provide evidence that DNA was "designed" by a mind. You have provided absolutely no evidence that DNA was "designed" by a mind. Small wonder that you're desperate to discuss just about anything else but the topic of the thread.

I've noted several times that Shapiro cites other well credentialed chemists who agree with him.

But you've chosen to ignore that as well. Unfortunately this is very typical of your closed ear approach. Pretend they didn't say it and they didn't, right?

The origin of a self replicating molecule that can (and did) support life has a direct bearing on the topic of the thread. And if you think it doesn't you're certainly free to discuss anything you wish with whomever you wish.

So far, nobody has given any evidence that any self replicating molecule other than dna/rna has EVER been the basis of ANY living organism. So, if it's evidence you want to discuss, that's where it's at.

If it's speculation that you're into, then we can continue to hash out the issue of ANOTHER unknown replicator preceding dna.

But there's no evidence for that.

What would you like to talk about , Set?

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)

Setanta wrote:

Which is simply more evidence of your desire to discuss anything but the actual topic of the thread. It doesn't matter if you've distorted the meaning of what a single reputable scientist wrote (and you've cited only Shapiro)--whether or not a replicator such as RNA arose independently of a living organism or within a living organism has absolutely no relevance to the topic of the thread.

It does not provide evidence that DNA was "designed" by a mind. You have provided absolutely no evidence that DNA was "designed" by a mind. Small wonder that you're desperate to discuss just about anything else but the topic of the thread.

I've noted several times that Shapiro cites other well credentialed chemists who agree with him.

But you've chosen to ignore that as well. Unfortunately this is very typical of your closed ear approach. Pretend they didn't say it and they didn't, right?

The origin of a self replicating molecule that can (and did) support life has a direct bearing on the topic of the thread. And if you think it doesn't you're certainly free to discuss anything you wish with whomever you wish.

So far, nobody has given any evidence that any self replicating molecule other than dna/rna has EVER been the basis of ANY living organism. So, if it's evidence you want to discuss, that's where it's at.

If it's speculation that you're into, then we can continue to hash out the issue of ANOTHER unknown replicator preceding dna.

But there's no evidence for that.

What would you like to talk about , Set?

. . . we would have made the transition from life that emerges from nonliving matter . . .

His approach is apparently to attack us for not having proof of every step in our reasoning, and then to pretend not to see when we ask him for evidence to support his own beliefs. I would think that it would be apparent even to him how unfair that is.

real life wrote:

So far, nobody has given any evidence that any self replicating molecule other than dna/rna has EVER been the basis of ANY living organism. So, if it's evidence you want to discuss, that's where it's at.

Really? No evidence? In spite of the evidence presented by Shapiro, fm, Set and others, you still claim there was NO evidence? Don't you mean no evidence you want to accept. The claim nobody has given any evidence is a flat out lie.

His approach is apparently to attack us for not having proof of every step in our reasoning, and then to pretend not to see when we ask him for evidence to support his own beliefs. I would think that it would be apparent even to him how unfair that is.

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

So far, nobody has given any evidence that any self replicating molecule other than dna/rna has EVER been the basis of ANY living organism. So, if it's evidence you want to discuss, that's where it's at.

Really? No evidence? In spite of the evidence presented by Shapiro, fm, Set and others, you still claim there was NO evidence? Don't you mean no evidence you want to accept. The claim nobody has given any evidence is a flat out lie.

I mean no evidence.

Apart from dna/rna, concerning what self replicating molecule do you have evidence that it has EVER actually been the basis for a living organism?

Don't tell me 'some unknown replicator that preceded rna' .

We're talking about evidence, not unfalsifiable speculation.

might I add that Ive never said or spculated that "we have it all down " RL, your twisting of others posts is famous

However, I might add that , in the case for science , Why ARe You seemingly against continuing research into the very question? DO you imply that we should merely stop the inquiries and accept some book of myths?

As a practitioner of "evidence first" Ill be happy to discuss what we (in the geo area) can safely state about the evidence of the living state and its progression (hint: evolution).

You seem stuck on RNA/DNA as some petard that is an apparent debate corner for science, when only a few scientsist had ever stated that the "RNA world" was the first evidence of life. This is just not the case.

However, there is an undeniable progression of chemical and later fosiil evidence that shows a path that life had taken (despite the hangup over whether DNA or RNA were the official replicators). SCience doesnt spend long budget times on dead ends of inquiry.Its more like a crossword puzzle, where we go to another area of the puzzle hoping to fill in the unknown words by "backing into them".
Im on record to fully be supportive of the research needed to answer these questions, apparently RL, by your position , are not. I wonder why. IS it because youre afraid of what we may find? or is the issue of Christian Bible infallibility a real sticking point for you?

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

So far, nobody has given any evidence that any self replicating molecule other than dna/rna has EVER been the basis of ANY living organism. So, if it's evidence you want to discuss, that's where it's at.

Really? No evidence? In spite of the evidence presented by Shapiro, fm, Set and others, you still claim there was NO evidence? Don't you mean no evidence you want to accept. The claim nobody has given any evidence is a flat out lie.

I mean no evidence.

no evidence that you will accept. Circumstantial evidence is "evidence". You refuse to accept any evidence that doesn't directly show you personally the exact thing you ask for. So.. You refuse to accept evidence.

You are being dishonest in your statement since you can't even present circumstantial evidence to support your position but you pretend you have evidence.

Quote:

Apart from dna/rna, concerning what self replicating molecule do you have evidence that it has EVER actually been the basis for a living organism?

Don't tell me 'some unknown replicator that preceded rna' .

We're talking about evidence, not unfalsifiable speculation.

Falsifiable is a word you like to throw around and then bastardize it's meaning beyond belief. For instance, your argument against the "RNA world" is that RNA can't survive in the ocean. That is as silly as arguing that humans can't exist because they can't breath underwater. Your argument ignores all other possibilities to concentrate on one you think can't be true. It shows dishonesty on your part. We know that peptides can form outside life. We know they can combine outside life. Your argument is one of "no one has shown me". There is evidence, you just refuse to accept any of it. Science creates hypothesis based on the evidence. The hypothesis is NOT without evidence to support it as you keep claiming.

Apart from dna/rna, concerning what self replicating molecule do you have evidence that it has EVER actually been the basis for a living organism?

Don't tell me 'some unknown replicator that preceded rna' .

We're talking about evidence, not unfalsifiable speculation

I think you're responding to a post that is directed specifically to Brandon, aren't you?

The 'undeniable path' that you speak of may be the very path that chemists like Shapiro deny.

real life wrote:

I think you're responding to a post that is directed specifically to Brandon, aren't you?

And it obliquely refers to "you guys (plural) are the ones who...".

It sounds like MCain when he says .
"Im not going to impune the character of Barack HuSSEIN Obama".

real life wrote:

The 'undeniable path' that you speak of may be the very path that chemists like Shapiro deny.

I think I said "Undeniable progression of chemical and fossil evidence..."

Further, youve demonstrated that you have no idea what Shapiro said,Im afraid that is we had Dr Shapiro himself, youd deny what he said.
Its just your position...

WELL anyway, you are coming out in favor of research into evolution . Thats good. You need to learn how baseless your own belief system is..