DNA Was Designed By A Mind

real life wrote:

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.

Your opinion deserves to be humble, given the ignorance you display. Single cell plants and animals complete their life cycles and reproduce typically in 20 minutes--twenty minutes for a generation. Even if you stretch that to say that the first lipid membranes surrounding catalytic small molecules as per Dyson and Shapiro had generations of one hour, that's 24 generations per day, 8760 generations per annum. As Farmerman has pointed out, you have a window of at the least, 300,000,000 years. That's 26,280,000,000,000 potential generations.

The archaea are a few microns in length (that's one one-millionth of a meter, bright boy, and a meter is 39.37 inches--so we're talking really, really tiny). So, applying the math to the available surface area of the seas, which is well over 350 billion square meters, and ignoring the added consideration of depth, even if the odds were one trillion to one against any particular lipid sack accumulating catalytic small molecules and dividing to produce "offspring" containing the same chemicals--in more than two dozen quintillion potential generations over a surface are of 350 billion square meters, each one of which can potentially contain billions of lipid spheres, the probabilities are enormous beyond your paltry imagining.

If you're talking pale violet grains of sand, and saying they're rare, on the scope of all the grains of sand on all the beaches and lake shores and river banks of the earth, there's gonna be an awful goddamned lot of pale violet grains of sand.

What an idiot.

RL

Quote:

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

. ALl discovery starts with an explanation of a phenomena or problem. Speaking of lewdicrus, I suppose science could sit on its ass and parrot Bible Babble , which, not only evidence free, but has no isea even how to formulate the specific questions.

NOONE is asking anyone to take anything on faith. Youseem to forget that these are two scientists , speaking their minds and posing options. They dont pose it as any "revealed truth" (like some folks we know ).
Right now these are "mind experiments" similar to those that J Tuzo Wilson played when he came up with Plate Tectonics, or Einstein when he was mentally riding a light beam and came up with the basis for special relativity.

I wouldnt want you to rack your brain trying to deconstruct the "mind experiments" of the two biochemical hypothses, so we wont even mention the many other hypotheses that exist re, the origin of life.

If youre huckstering for a Creator, youre not putting on a very convincing show. All I see is someone who has painted himself into a corner of limited origin options (actually you only "believe" in but one option) and cant allow anything else in the realm of possibility to permeate your skull. Once you accept a divine creator, all reserch options are out, an all available evidence must be vehemently denied like a good little Borg.


I know you cant accept this but science will engage in heaps of "mind expeiments" and conjecture and modelling and will look for more environmental evidence and then propose and test several options,. The reason science does this is because , the Biblical story had long ago been tested and found to be only myth when closely inspected.

Since you have but one creation myth in mind, I wonder what your guys will do when the Lakota or Ojibway Creation legends are being "critically"discussed in Louisiana schools next year.

Brandon9000 wrote:

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?

Nice.

Noone ever labeled it as "Gospel"

So, the oceans should be teeming with this variety of life (i.e. metabolically active spheres with no dna/rna).

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

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.

Your opinion deserves to be humble, given the ignorance you display. Single cell plants and animals complete their life cycles and reproduce typically in 20 minutes--twenty minutes for a generation. Even if you stretch that to say that the first lipid membranes surrounding catalytic small molecules as per Dyson and Shapiro had generations of one hour, that's 24 generations per day, 8760 generations per annum. As Farmerman has pointed out, you have a window of at the least, 300,000,000 years. That's 26,280,000,000,000 potential generations.

The archaea are a few microns in length (that's one one-millionth of a meter, bright boy, and a meter is 39.37 inches--so we're talking really, really tiny). So, applying the math to the available surface area of the seas, which is well over 350 billion square meters, and ignoring the added consideration of depth, even if the odds were one trillion to one against any particular lipid sack accumulating catalytic small molecules and dividing to produce "offspring" containing the same chemicals--in more than two dozen quintillion potential generations over a surface are of 350 billion square meters, each one of which can potentially contain billions of lipid spheres, the probabilities are enormous beyond your paltry imagining.

If you're talking pale violet grains of sand, and saying they're rare, on the scope of all the grains of sand on all the beaches and lake shores and river banks of the earth, there's gonna be an awful goddamned lot of pale violet grains of sand.

What an idiot.

I was hoping someone would try to make the mathematical argument.

So, the oceans should be teeming with this variety of life (i.e. metabolically active spheres with no dna/rna). Where is it?

Upon what basis do you make that claim? Do you allege that the environment now is the same as it was more than 2,000,000,000 years ago? This is horseshit on the order of that stupid attempt you made to advance the young weak sun paradox, which is no paradox at all, because it only works if you assume that the atmosphere billions of years ago was the same as it is today. Do you allege that the oceans billions of years ago were identical to those on the earth today? If you do, upon what basis do you make such an allegation? In fact, if you make that claim, you will be wrong; dead wrong, in fact, from the point of view of life.

Three and half billion years ago, there was almost no free oxygen on the earth. Geological evidence suggests that there may have been as much as 100 times more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere as there is today. Free oxygen is a poison gas to many forms of life which survive in the present day, and which are descended from the earliest forms of life. Do you not understand just how disastrous the rise of cyanobacteria was for life on earth? Do you not understand that the oceans billions of years ago had almost no free oxygen dissolved in the water, and that what was there was quickly removed by free radicals in the water, such as iron? Do you not understand that the rise of cyanobacteria lead to what can be alleged to be the greatest extinction event in the history of life? Do you not understand that anaerobic organisms only survive today in portions of the ocean floor (such as volcanic vents) which contain little or no free oxygen? Do you not understand that, therefore, it is highly unlikely that any life form exactly like those which existed before free oxygen was common in the oceans and the atmosphere still survives?

Apparently, you don't understand such rather basic things. Apparently, you are so ignorant that you can pose a question which so glaringly demonstrates your ignorance.

Given that you have repeatedly stated that you believe the earth to be on the order of thousands of years old, are you not being fundamentally dishonest to engage in such arguments at all?

So, the oceans should be teeming with this variety of life (i.e. metabolically active spheres with no dna/rna). Where is it?

Notice how your 'Extinction Argument' makes your earlier 'Numerical Argument' rather useless?

rosborne979 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

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?

Nice.

I find that so called 'scientific' explanations of origins often have no more 'scientific evidence' to them than religious ones.

Im actually starting to feel sorry for RL.

Notice how your 'Extinction Argument' makes your earlier 'Numerical Argument' rather useless?

farmerman wrote:

Im actually starting to feel sorry for RL.

Ignorance is bliss. He'll be fine

rosborne979 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

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?

Nice.

I find that so called 'scientific' explanations of origins often have no more 'scientific evidence' to them than religious ones.

And I think I've pointed this out on more than one occasion.

Often a so-called 'scientific theory' is nothing more than supernaturalism dressed in a lab coat.