DNA Was Designed By A Mind

parados wrote:

...he is quick to point out they know less than real life

I don't think I've said anything of the kind.

I've stated my objections to his views, what of it?

Do you have an answer for my objections, or are you simply bothered that I would dare to differ from your opinion?

He acknowledges that creationists see the 'RNA world ' as implausible (as he does. Shapiro has elsewhere referred to the 'lethal defect' of such a view) , but do not go along with him on 'cosmic evolution'.

Not sure what point you're trying to make FM, but you might want to forego the attempts at psychoanalysis until you have a license to practice. And then you'll need practice.

A garbage bag full of various molecules that transfer catalyzed duplicates of themselves, is the point.

The idea of the garbage-bag world is that a random collection of molecules in a bag may occasionally contain catalysts that cause synthesis of other molecules that act as catalysts to synthesize other molecules, and so on. Very rarely a collection of molecules may arise that contains enough catalysts to reproduce the whole population as time goes on. The reproduction does not irieed to be precise. It is enough if the catalysts are maintained in a rough statistical fashion. The population of molecules in the bag is reproducing itself without any exact replication. While this is happening, the bag may be growing by accretion of fresh garbage from outside, and the bag may occasionally be broken into two bags when it is thrown around by turbulent motions. The critical question is then, what is the probability that a daughter bag produced from the splitting of a bag with a self-reproducing population of molecules will itself contain a self-reproducing population? When this probability is greater than one half, a parent produces on the average more than one functional daughter, a divergent chain reaction can occur, the bags containing self-reproducing populations will multiply, and life of a sort has begun.

The critical question is then, what is the probability that a daughter bag produced from the splitting of a bag with a self-reproducing population of molecules will itself contain a self-reproducing population?

Very rarely a collection of molecules may arise that contains enough catalysts to reproduce the whole population as time goes on.

When this probability is greater than one half, a parent produces on the average more than one functional daughter, a divergent chain reaction can occur, the bags containing self-reproducing populations will multiply, and life of a sort has begun.

contradicts himself by implying it could happen frequently

As H Ross PErot said "Im all ears"

farmerman wrote:

A garbage bag full of various molecules that transfer catalyzed duplicates of themselves, is the point.

Here is Dyson's explanation of the garbage bag:

Quote:

The idea of the garbage-bag world is that a random collection of molecules in a bag may occasionally contain catalysts that cause synthesis of other molecules that act as catalysts to synthesize other molecules, and so on. Very rarely a collection of molecules may arise that contains enough catalysts to reproduce the whole population as time goes on. The reproduction does not irieed to be precise. It is enough if the catalysts are maintained in a rough statistical fashion. The population of molecules in the bag is reproducing itself without any exact replication. While this is happening, the bag may be growing by accretion of fresh garbage from outside, and the bag may occasionally be broken into two bags when it is thrown around by turbulent motions. The critical question is then, what is the probability that a daughter bag produced from the splitting of a bag with a self-reproducing population of molecules will itself contain a self-reproducing population? When this probability is greater than one half, a parent produces on the average more than one functional daughter, a divergent chain reaction can occur, the bags containing self-reproducing populations will multiply, and life of a sort has begun.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/20/035.html



He asks:

Quote:

The critical question is then, what is the probability that a daughter bag produced from the splitting of a bag with a self-reproducing population of molecules will itself contain a self-reproducing population?

He has already previously given the answer just above:

Quote:

Very rarely a collection of molecules may arise that contains enough catalysts to reproduce the whole population as time goes on.

But now contradicts himself by implying it could happen frequently:

Quote:

When this probability is greater than one half, a parent produces on the average more than one functional daughter, a divergent chain reaction can occur, the bags containing self-reproducing populations will multiply, and life of a sort has begun.

Life is not one thing but two, metabolism and replication, and the two things are logically separable. Metabolism is the normal chemical activity of a living cell. Replication is the precise copying of a gene. There are accordingly two logical possibilities for life's origins. Either life began only once, with the functions of replication and metabolism already present and linked together from the beginning, or life began twice, with two separate kinds of creatures, one kind arising first, capable of metabolism without exact replication, the other kind coming much later, capable of replication without metabolism. If life began once, the beginning was something like the RNA world. If life began twice, the first beginning was the garbage-bag world, with creatures containing all kinds of molecules. These garbage- bag creatures might have existed independently for a long time, perhaps as long as one or two billion years, eating and growing and gradually evolving a more and more efficient metabolic apparatus. The second beginning might have been with replicating parasites made of RNA, arriving later and preying upon the garbage-bag creatures. The parasites could use the products of the garbage-bag metabolism as life-support to help them achieve their own replication.

The member "real life" failed entirely to understand the shopping list metaphor for replication, Parados . . . just as he failed to understand everything else which Shapiro, Dyson, et al have written . . .

More from Dyson:

Quote:

Life is not one thing but two, metabolism and replication, and the two things are logically separable. Metabolism is the normal chemical activity of a living cell. Replication is the precise copying of a gene. There are accordingly two logical possibilities for life's origins. Either life began only once, with the functions of replication and metabolism already present and linked together from the beginning, or life began twice, with two separate kinds of creatures, one kind arising first, capable of metabolism without exact replication, the other kind coming much later, capable of replication without metabolism. If life began once, the beginning was something like the RNA world. If life began twice, the first beginning was the garbage-bag world, with creatures containing all kinds of molecules. These garbage- bag creatures might have existed independently for a long time, perhaps as long as one or two billion years, eating and growing and gradually evolving a more and more efficient metabolic apparatus. The second beginning might have been with replicating parasites made of RNA, arriving later and preying upon the garbage-bag creatures. The parasites could use the products of the garbage-bag metabolism as life-support to help them achieve their own replication.

Funny stuff.

Suddenly, out of nowhere, appear parasites made of RNA. (How this RNA originated in the open environment is left unmentioned, it is simply assumed.)

'Life may have spontaneously appeared not once but twice.'

Of course, ludicrous explanations like this are based on NO evidence that they actually happened, but we're expected to take them on faith.

Setanta wrote:

The member "real life" failed entirely to understand the shopping list metaphor for replication, Parados . . . just as he failed to understand everything else which Shapiro, Dyson, et al have written . . .

Expecting the garbage bag to 'be growing by accretion of fresh garbage from outside' (Dyson's concept) while not altering the 'very rare' balance and concentration of specific catalysts and raw resources which are engaged in ongoing metabolic activity is a study in the miraculous, IMHO.

Of course, ludicrous explanations like this are based on NO evidence that they actually happened, but we're expected to take them on faith.

And I have no problem with that.

Meanwhile, do you have any thoughts of your own, or are you just here to parrot whatever seems most popular at the time?

...Of course, ludicrous explanations like this are based on NO evidence that they actually happened, but we're expected to take them on faith.

Setanta wrote:

The member "real life" failed entirely to understand the shopping list metaphor for replication, Parados . . . just as he failed to understand everything else which Shapiro, Dyson, et al have written . . .

Expecting the garbage bag to 'be growing by accretion of fresh garbage from outside' (Dyson's concept) while not altering the 'very rare' balance and concentration of specific catalysts and raw resources which are engaged in ongoing metabolic activity is a study in the miraculous, IMHO.

real life wrote:

...Of course, ludicrous explanations like this are based on NO evidence that they actually happened, but we're expected to take them on faith.

Doesn't this describe your theory of the origins of life exactly?