DNA Was Designed By A Mind

The member "real life" continues successful in his intellectual guerrilla campaign. He does not ever intend to prove a proposition as goofy as that DNA was designed by a mind. He intends always to attempt to force others to disprove it.

To that extent, he either always wins, or runs home with his toys crying to his imaginary friend.

Provide evidence of nuclear reactions occurring on the sun that are not inferred from circumstantial evidence. Provide evidence of gravity existing that is not inferred from how mass responds to other mass. You are consistent in your lack of consistency. You set standards that are NOT scientific then claim they are science.
More than one inference has been drawn from the sun shining. It was once postulated the the sun could only be 6000 years old because all the fuel on the sun would burn out in that time. Since more than one inference can be drawn could you kindly show us that nuclear reactions actually exist on the sun. Or you can admit you don't accept any science because you don't accept how science works.

More than one inference has been drawn from mass being attracted to other mass. Feel free to show that gravity "actually exists" without using any inferences.
Oh? Why is that? Are you saying that would be the only evidence you would accept about the big bang? Or are you saying that gravity doesn't exist in this universe?

I see nothing wrong with using a process of elimination and narrowing the possibilities.

I've stated:



Do you agree with this? or are you still under the assumption that 'somehow' DNA could pull off a chemical miracle and self generate?

This is typical of your bullshit. That DNA cannot assemble itself in an open environment (if true, and i'm not arguing that it is not), does not mean that DNA cannot assemble itself in any environment. This is doubtlessly the basis for your horseshit claim that "it cannot happen by chance."

I absolutely agree. It's not conclusive. But it significantly reduces the options.

What other environment do you propose? The choices are rather limited.

Shapiro proposes one of the few environments left to him, i.e. inside an existing living organism.

To do this, he must propose an organism with no replicative ability and which chiefly relies on 'physical forces splitting it' to achieve reproduction. A most unlikely scenario for producing a very long family line, IMHO.

He seems to consider it his best option however.

In the first place, Shapiro describes the relicative process, despite continued deceit which attempts to claim that there is none. You try to pick what Shapiro has written into little pieces you can use, and you can only use them with distortion and deceit, and you ignore the comprehensive whole of what Shapiro has to say.

In the second place, life does not require DNA to replicate, it can do it with RNA, which many viruses do today, and it can do it with protein folding, which is what prions do. So any claim on your part to the effect that "life" requires this or that chemical or this or that chemical process is completely without merit--and you are trying to say that there can have been no "living organisms" before DNA existed (because otherwise the feeble **** which passes for an argument on your part falls apart), and that DNA can not have arisen by chance.

You choose a poor source in choosing Shapiro, who is, in dismissing the "RNA world" hypothesis, speculating (from the profundity of his "award-winning" knowledge of chemistry) on precisely how RNA could have arisen with the cells of living organisms. He specifically discusses life arising from nonliving material.

You know nothing about chemistry, that is obvious, and you even try to pick our arguments apart, so as not to be obliged to deal with a comprehensive set of linked thoughts. For example, here you are ignoring the mathematical odds of a great many "living organisms" such a Dyson and Shapiro imagine arising in the space available and in the time available, which i earlier mentioned to you.

You are just arguing--you don't actually have a coherent argument.

You are also engaged in "quote mining" the posts of those with whom you disagree. You don't want to engage the entire argument, you just want to find individual remarks to pick apart--and you don't even succeed at that.

And you recieved your training in molecular biology from where RL?. The only one all fired up about this seeming "important "oint is you. Most of the scientists have their own pet theories including the RNA world preceded by a "Thioetser world" etc.
Youve posted comments as if you understand what youre even talking about. Yet, we havent seen any references concerning your points entirely. Kinda cheap debate there RL, nothing invested on your behalf leaves your entire argument a ruin.

Ive given you several items of evidence from the fossil record and fossil P-chem record, youve ignored them all because Ive figured that you have no opinion to counter. Id suggest redaing (as I told you prior) R HAzens "Genesis" a good review of the research thats underway.


Set, RL has shown to be the maestro of quote mining. He snatches little irrelevant chunks from a post or a reference and misses the authors entire meaning. Thats just cheap and lazy attitude, but, like Ive said before, eve never been acdusing the CReationist Christians of being civil in their methods. Armed with scripture in one hand and a random phrase generator in the other, they march out to do "Battle" against the godless sciences.

I suggest that he's ignored them simply because he has no interest in trying to understand anything. He's simply interested in constructing specious sound-bites which appeal to a cursory read.

I'm hoping that when atheistic science takes over the world, i'll be put in charge of a rape camp for good christian wimmins. When they're about 7 months pregnant, they'll be required to undergo partial birth abortions.

But that's just the floor show . . . wait until we get really cranked up . . .

Even if you ignore that fact that some of the compounds necessary to DNA's construction would be unlikely to survive in the open environment, you are still faced with the fact that IF a miracle occurred and dna WAS generated, it would be quickly degraded and destroyed by the very environment that produced it.

I know you don't like to discuss this deal-breaker, but it is what it is.

Bullshit . . . there's no "deal breaker."

Jesus, what an idiot. How many times do you need to be told that no one here claims that DNA was or needed to have been formed in the open environment?

You have absolutely no argument.

The point that DNA formed "In the open" is a red herring.It stinks as logic. The very compounds for its assimilation occur in cells dummy.

OK, so you put the cell before DNA?

And how do you propose that these 'cells' reproduce generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation............?

Remember Shapiro stated that not only DNA and RNA , but any proposed RNA substitute was so unlikely to have been produced in the environment that he and other like minded chemists consider it , in effect, a dead end.

So the 'cell' appears without a replicator, and then it reproduces by .....................(fill in the blank pls) ?

Go back and read the Shapiro article that you post yourself, dunce . . . pay special attention to the shopping list metaphor.

By the way, the whole point of the small molecule scenario, and Dyson's garbage bag metaphor is that the cells don't need to replicate.

But you didn't understand that part, either, did you?

You don't know anything about chemistry, do you "real life?"

You don't understand why Shapiro has a small molecule thesis, do you?

You don't understand the significance of small molecules in relations to lipid spheres, do you?

Do you know what the "N" in RNA, and DNA, and any putative xNA means, do you?

being ignorant i one thing, being stubbonly intractably ignorant , something else entirely. I wonder if RL is even educable in this area.

R Hazen-Genesis, read please RL, and then you maybe can see where the subject has gone. This
sounds a lot like gungasnales method of debate.

Yeah , actually I did understand it.

And I was going to mention it to you when you stated:



He says they reproduce, but they don't (can't) replicate.

They do need to reproduce......

over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over

for MANY generations until they can eventually 'evolve' a replicating molecule that can NOT ONLY replicate itself BUT ALSO reproduce the very environment that produced it.

Relying on things like 'physical forces splitting it' (instead of any ability within the organism to perform reproduction) doesn't seem like a very likely mechanism to assure the production of the MANY generations that you're gonna need IMHO.

So what? As i pointed out once before, over a few hundred million years, and over the more than 300,000,000 square meters of the surface of the seas of this planet--you're about three or four quintillion "over and overs" short.