DNA Was Designed By A Mind

And I never said he agreed with me on each and every point, nor that I agreed with him on every point.

It's hard to believe that your comprehension could be so poor.

Shapiro certainly is adamant about stating that NO rna molecule nor rna substitute could've developed in the open environment.

Can you honestly admit that?

dna certainly could not.

Can you honestly admit that ?

No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense

With similar considerations in mind Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute concluded that the spontaneous appearance of RNA chains on the lifeless Earth "would have been a near miracle."

The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable.

This thread is so much fun.

rosborne979 wrote:

This thread is so much fun.

I'm enjoying it for sure.

Abiogenesis is one of the biggest frauds around.

real life wrote:

And I never said he agreed with me on each and every point, nor that I agreed with him on every point.

It's hard to believe that your comprehension could be so poor.

Shapiro certainly is adamant about stating that NO rna molecule nor rna substitute could've developed in the open environment.

Can you honestly admit that?

dna certainly could not.

Can you honestly admit that ?

So.. real life.. Could you point out where you think Shapiro said it "could not" have happened.

Shapiro says this..

Quote:

No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense

Quote:

With similar considerations in mind Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute concluded that the spontaneous appearance of RNA chains on the lifeless Earth "would have been a near miracle."

Quote:

The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable.

Nowhere does Shapiro say it "could not have happened."

The one point you are arguing that you agree with Shapiro on is one Shapiro never made.

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

You don't want to even to begin discussing dna, Set.

I know you don't, because you've avoided discussing the topic of the thread consistently.

I'm content to show that it didn't happen by chance, Set.

You haven't shown any such thing. If you say that you have, it makes you a liar.

You sound like a broken record.

You can't reasonably discuss the origin of dna, so you simply say 'liar, liar, liar'

You're really getting pitiful.

DNA could not have originated in the open environment, even as a successor to earlier replicators.

So where do you think that it 'evolved' ? In an already living organism?

Shapiro has advanced some significant objections regarding the concentration and availability of the needed components of rna, before you even get to dna.

But you'll honestly face none of these issues. All you can due is deny, deny, deny.

Go ahead clap your hands over your ears and sing la la lala la la lala

I have repeatedly pointed out that Shapiro does not at any time support your claim that (as you have most recently articulated it), ". . . it didn't happen by chance."

And I never said he agreed with me on each and every point, nor that I agreed with him on every point.

It's hard to believe that your comprehension could be so poor.

Shapiro certainly is adamant about stating that NO rna molecule nor rna substitute could've developed in the open environment.

Can you honestly admit that?

dna certainly could not.

Can you honestly admit that ?

What possible difference does that make?

I guess I understood his reference to the 'lethal defect' in the rna world hypothesis coupled with his nonbelief in miracles ( he quotes approvingly of the need to 'reject improbabilities') to be fairly conclusive.

But have it your way. There COULDA been a miracle, you're right.

rl

Quote:

Do you or do you not agree with Shapiro that the 'rna world' hypothesis is implausible?

I dont make believe that Ive got the same level of involvement as Dr Shapiro, so his opinions are valid, (As are equally counter arguments by Craig Venter, Niles Eldredge etc). As you conveniently miscast what Shapiro said , you fail to mention that his
"Improbability of an RNA world" is based upon a somewhat convincing argument that life originated with much simpler molecules, and evolved into the xNA family of products. I can live with either outcome, what about you? does a simpler chemical world satisfy your intellectual curiosity?

Beats the "Big guy in the sky" alternative (from which not even a hypothesis , testable under present science, can be formulated)

real life wrote:

I guess I understood his reference to the 'lethal defect' in the rna world hypothesis coupled with his nonbelief in miracles ( he quotes approvingly of the need to 'reject improbabilities') to be fairly conclusive.

But have it your way. There COULDA been a miracle, you're right.

Really? You understood it? LOL.. yeah.. I guess you agree with what you "understood". You just don't agree with Shapiro.

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." DNA, RNA, proteins and other elaborate large molecules must then be set aside as participants in the origin of life.

Shapiro's small molecules scenario has serious gaps:

How do organisms with no replicative molecule replicate?

And if they did successfully replicate when 'physical forces split them' what was the imperative to develop rna or a replicator of any kind?

What would the 'survival advantage' be vs. the extreme amount of resources needed within a limited space to develop such a massive molecule?

The same problem with trying to develop rna in the environment ( the missing concentration of needed components) is greatly magnified when (instead of the whole ocean to work with) you only have a microscopic drop encased in a lipid membrane.

The major gap: there is no evidence of any living organism that EVER actually had a self replicating molecule other than rna/dna as its basis. NONE.

Science would have a great deal more credibility if these kind of issues were openly and honestly discussed.

But they are generally avoided like the plague and whispered about behind closed doors.

real life wrote:

The same problem with trying to develop rna in the environment ( the missing concentration of needed components) is greatly magnified when (instead of the whole ocean to work with) you only have a microscopic drop encased in a lipid membrane.

Until you consider the fact that a microorganism creates urea and if it isn't excreted it would build up. A build up of urea would create a concentration of urea. A concentration of urea is required for what? Oh.. that's right. It's science that you think has no evidence.

I will cite one example of prebiotic synthesis, published in 1995 by Nature and featured in the New York Times. The RNA base cytosine was prepared in high yield by heating two purified chemicals in a sealed glass tube at 100 degrees Celsius for about a day. One of the reagents, cyanoacetaldehyde, is a reactive substance capable of combining with a number of common chemicals that may have been present on the early Earth. These competitors were excluded. An extremely high concentration was needed to coax the other participant, urea, to react at a sufficient rate for the reaction to succeed. The product, cytosine, can self-destruct by simple reaction with water. When the urea concentration was lowered, or the reaction allowed to continue too long, any cytosine that was produced was subsequently destroyed. This destructive reaction had been discovered in my laboratory, as part of my continuing research on environmental damage to DNA. Our own cells deal with it by maintaining a suite of enzymes that specialize in DNA repair.

The exceptionally high urea concentration was rationalized in the Nature paper by invoking a vision of drying lagoons on the early Earth. In a published rebuttal, I calculated that a large lagoon would have to be evaporated to the size of a puddle, without loss of its contents, to achieve that concentration. No such feature exists on Earth today.

real life wrote:

The major gap: there is no evidence of any living organism that EVER actually had a self replicating molecule other than rna/dna as its basis. NONE.

You never did answer Set's question about prions.

real life wrote:

And if they did successfully replicate when 'physical forces split them' what was the imperative to develop rna or a replicator of any kind?

Who says there is an "imperative"? Other than you? Evolution isn't driven by "imperatives".

real life wrote:

Shapiro's small molecules scenario has serious gaps:

How do organisms with no replicative molecule replicate?

You provide your own answer below. You just don't want to accept it in spite of evidence.

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

I guess I understood his reference to the 'lethal defect' in the rna world hypothesis coupled with his nonbelief in miracles ( he quotes approvingly of the need to 'reject improbabilities') to be fairly conclusive.

But have it your way. There COULDA been a miracle, you're right.

Really? You understood it? LOL.. yeah.. I guess you agree with what you "understood". You just don't agree with Shapiro.

So what do you think he means when he cites others that urge us to 'reject improbabilities' ?

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

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." DNA, RNA, proteins and other elaborate large molecules must then be set aside as participants in the origin of life.

Seems like you've taken the opposite approach.

rosborne979 wrote:

This thread is so much fun.

I'm enjoying it for sure.

Abiogenesis is one of the biggest frauds around.

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

I guess I understood his reference to the 'lethal defect' in the rna world hypothesis coupled with his nonbelief in miracles ( he quotes approvingly of the need to 'reject improbabilities') to be fairly conclusive.

But have it your way. There COULDA been a miracle, you're right.

Really? You understood it? LOL.. yeah.. I guess you agree with what you "understood". You just don't agree with Shapiro.

So what do you think he means when he cites others that urge us to 'reject improbabilities' ?

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

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." DNA, RNA, proteins and other elaborate large molecules must then be set aside as participants in the origin of life.

Seems like you've taken the opposite approach.

Not at all. RNA is created in a container. Whether the container it is in is considered life or not is irrelevant in the discussion of how RNA came about. Shapiro only says it is improbable for the container to have been dead prior to RNA forming.

"In the very beginning, you couldn't have genetic material that could copy itself unless you had chemists back then doing it for you," Shapiro told LiveScience.

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

And if they did successfully replicate when 'physical forces split them' what was the imperative to develop rna or a replicator of any kind?

Who says there is an "imperative"? Other than you? Evolution isn't driven by "imperatives".

Evolving a huge molecule such as a replicator would be very 'expensive' in terms of resources for a small organism.

If the critter is already successfully replicating, what would the 'survival advantage' be vs. the extreme amount of resources needed within a limited space to develop such a massive molecule?