DNA Was Designed By A Mind

real life wrote:

btw are you still insistent that a replicator was a necessary first step, or have you converted to the 'small molecules' camp after reading Shapiro?

You must be getting me confused with someone else.

I have always known that some type of pre-replicative system gave rise to the first replicative molecules. I didn't need Shapiro or anyone else to tell me that.

From my perspective, as we've talked about in the Creation thread, the BB is supernatural explanation.

Also as we've previously discussed, Shapiro cites well known scientific types who consider the likelihood of a replicator leading to first life as akin to believing in miracles.

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." I would extend this conclusion to all of the proposed RNA substitutes that I mentioned above.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-simpler-origin-for-life

Hardly the 'almost inevitable' probability that some would have us think.

So there are so-called 'scientific' positions that rely on *poof* as well. They just don't like to talk about it.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

btw are you still insistent that a replicator was a necessary first step, or have you converted to the 'small molecules' camp after reading Shapiro?

You must be getting me confused with someone else.

I have always known that some type of pre-replicative system gave rise to the first replicative molecules. I didn't need Shapiro or anyone else to tell me that.

Essentially, Shapiro's view seems to be that small molecules developed into living organisms BEFORE a replicating molecule was developed.

Is that your view as well?

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

btw are you still insistent that a replicator was a necessary first step, or have you converted to the 'small molecules' camp after reading Shapiro?

You must be getting me confused with someone else.

I have always known that some type of pre-replicative system gave rise to the first replicative molecules. I didn't need Shapiro or anyone else to tell me that.

Essentially, Shapiro's view seems to be that small molecules developed into living organisms BEFORE a replicating molecule was developed.

Is that your view as well?

The premise of your question is invalid because your summary of Shapiro's view is incorrect.

A system of reproduction must eventually develop. If our network is housed in a lipid membrane, then physical forces may split it, after it has grown enough. (Freeman Dyson has described such a system as a "garbage-bag world" in contrast to the "neat and beautiful scene" of the RNA world.) A system that functions in a compartment within a mineral may overflow into adjacent compartments. Whatever the mechanism may be, this dispersal into separated units protects the system from total extinction by a localized destructive eventOnce 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.

Systems of the type I have described usually have been classified under the heading "metabolism first," which implies that they do not contain a mechanism for heredity. In other words, they contain no obvious molecule or structure that allows the information stored in them (their heredity) to be duplicated and passed on to their descendants. However a collection of small items holds the same information as a list that describes the items. For example, my wife gives me a shopping list for the supermarket; the collection of grocery items that I return with contains the same information as the list. Doron Lancet has given the name "compositional genome" to heredity stored in small molecules, rather than a list such as DNA or RNA.


The small molecule approach to the origin of life makes several demands upon nature (a compartment, an external energy supply, a driver reaction coupled to that supply, and the existence of a chemical network that contains that reaction). These requirements are general in nature, however, and are immensely more probable than the elaborate multi-step pathways needed to form a molecule that can function as a replicator.

real life wrote:

Also as we've previously discussed, Shapiro cites well known scientific types who consider the likelihood of a replicator leading to first life as akin to believing in miracles.

The quote you provided doesn't say "replicators", it says "RNA and RNA substitutes" specifically

Fortunately, an alternative group of theories that can employ these materials has existed for decades. The theories employ a thermodynamic rather than a genetic definition of life

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Also as we've previously discussed, Shapiro cites well known scientific types who consider the likelihood of a replicator leading to first life as akin to believing in miracles.

The quote you provided doesn't say "replicators", it says "RNA and RNA substitutes" specifically

What OTHER replicator did you have in mind?

Shapiro is quite familiar with all the major theories for early life and he places all of the replicators in the 'next to impossible' category and goes in search of small molecules.

What do you know that he doesn't?

Here's a quote from earlier in the article:

Quote:

Fortunately, an alternative group of theories that can employ these materials has existed for decades. The theories employ a thermodynamic rather than a genetic definition of life

The article then continues with the paragraph you provided. Obviously they are using the thermodynamic definition of life rather than the genetic one, and as such, Shapiro's hypothesis fails to support the argument you are trying to make.

A localized region which increases in order (decreases in entropy) through cycles driven by an energy flow would be considered alive.

For crying out loud, RL, you really have such incredibly poor reading comprehensions skills, don't you?

No scientist has said anything about poofism. Instead, Shapiro is saying that we should start looking for smaller replicative molecules.

I find it funny how Professor Shapiro himself in his 1985 book (Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth) states that Creationists are "not so much interested in advocating the practice of religion, which they can do in many other, less controversial ways, but rather are trying to subvert the practice of science in areas where the conclusions reached by scientists do not please them."

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Also as we've previously discussed, Shapiro cites well known scientific types who consider the likelihood of a replicator leading to first life as akin to believing in miracles.

The quote you provided doesn't say "replicators", it says "RNA and RNA substitutes" specifically

What OTHER replicator did you have in mind?

Shapiro is quite familiar with all the major theories for early life and he places all of the replicators in the 'next to impossible' category and goes in search of small molecules.

What do you know that he doesn't?

I'm sorry you're having so much trouble understanding the article. It speaks for itself pretty clearly, but it is complex enough that you can't simply paraphrase bits and pieces of it inaccurately and still hope to retain any of its meaning. You'll have to actually think to understand it, and I can't help you with that.

What this means is that the organism did not need a genetic component (replicating molecule) to be alive.

It means exactly what I said, he believes that the organisms were living BEFORE a replicating molecule was developed

What do you know that Shapiro doesn't?

real life wrote:

What this means is that the organism did not need a genetic component (replicating molecule) to be alive.

It means exactly what I said, he believes that the organisms were living BEFORE a replicating molecule was developed

Well then, it's important for you to clarify that you were not using the standard definition of "living", but instead using the thermodynamic definition. And then you would need to be consistent with your use of the term, or to be specific when you use it.

Shapiro is saying that small non-replicative molecules resulted in what he's calling "thermodynamic life", prior to the advent of genetic life (replicative molecules), and that's fine with me. It doesn't conflict with what I said at all. However, it does conflict with *poof*, since the whole thrust of this article is an attempt to offer a natural sequence which leads to replicative molecules.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

I'm sure you wish that were the case, ros.

But tell the truth, you'd miss me.

You are good for a laugh, I'll give you that.

real life wrote:

I find it interesting that you've usually denied that abiogenesis was part of evolution, yet want to insist that natural selection guided dead chemicals into producing a living organism.

Not true. It's pretty obvious that non-replicative chemicals somehow gave rise to replicative ones. This is exactly why [biological] evolution does not apply to abiogenesis.

real life wrote:

btw are you still insistent that a replicator was a necessary first step, or have you converted to the 'small molecules' camp after reading Shapiro?

You must be getting me confused with someone else.

I have always known that some type of pre-replicative system gave rise to the first replicative molecules. I didn't need Shapiro or anyone else to tell me that.

My previous post on this exact thread is pretty clear. What didn't you understand about it? I know, the part where I say, "we won't accept *poof* as the answer". That part really bothers you doesn't it?

Bothered? Not at all.

See, that's the difference between you and many of the other A2K 'experts'.

I found it pretty funny, and I know you meant it to be both funny and to be a put-down of my belief.

That's ok. I don't perceive any malice in it, and it's not a personal thing. You're just stating your view.

From my perspective, as we've talked about in the Creation thread, the BB is supernatural explanation.

Also as we've previously discussed, Shapiro cites well known scientific types who consider the likelihood of a replicator leading to first life as akin to believing in miracles.

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." I would extend this conclusion to all of the proposed RNA substitutes that I mentioned above.

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."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-simpler-origin-for-life

Hardly the 'almost inevitable' probability that some would have us think.

So there are so-called 'scientific' positions that rely on *poof* as well. They just don't like to talk about it.

So do you believe that all life on Earth could've been the result of such living organisms, i.e . 'living organisms' with no replicative molecule to store information and guide reproduction?

Do you consider Shapiro's 'garbage bag' method of reproduction plausible for producing new generations of living organisms on a large scale?

It would have to be on a large scale and continue for quite a long time to allow time for a replicative molecule, which is absent at this stage, to eventually appear, would it not?

Is it better to assert without any evidence that 'dna was NOT designed by a mind' ?