DNA Was Designed By A Mind

By the way, smart guy, satisfy my curiosity. Just why does Shapiro insist on a small molecule hypothesis, especially with reference to lipid spheres?

Just humor me here, Bubba . . . demonstrate that you understand the chemistry.

0 Replies

Hello ? ? ?

"Real life?"

The significance of small molecules and lipids?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
Brandon,

You'll have to try it on your own, like I did.

Nobody else can investigate this for you.

I could claim any bizarre false idea.

I'm not saying you should claim anything or that you should believe anything that you think I have claimed.

If you want to investigate, do so.

I have set forth this method, for instance:

When investigating the subject of prayer (from the Christian perspective), it is a very simple issue to investigate.

1. Determine from the Bible the conditions under which the God of the Bible says prayer will be answered.

2. Be very sure you meet those conditions.

3. Pray.

You don't have to believe anything that I claim, investigate it for yourself.

You appear to be saying that your evidence of the existence of God, his role in the origin of life, etc. is a personal communication by him. This would seem to be a tacit admission that you cannot find a particle of evidence which could be used to convince another person that God exists. Since there is no external evidence of his existence, it would be unreasonable for anyone who hasn't had such a personal revelation to accept his existence. Furthermore, one can also conclude that unless one has had such a personal communication, there is far more evidence for the theory of evolution than for the existence of God.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
IS that your entire purpose in this discussion to only sow doubt on others research or inquiries?

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

I've stated:

Quote:
DNA cannot self assemble in the open environment, even as a successor to a postulated earlier replicator.

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

Dishonesty alert!!! No one here has suggested that DNA self-generated. Everyone has been referring to a much simpler molecule. This has been repeated to you over and over.

0 Replies

If "real life" really understood the significance of a small molecule hypothesis with regard to lipid membranes, then he might be able to put it all together to understand (whether or not he chooses to agree with that "award-winning" chemist) why Shapiro is not talking about RNA (or DNA, for that matter) somehow spontaneously "assembling itself," and why his incredibly stupid insistence on "an open environment" is meaningless.

0 Replies

You know, i've been giving this clown way too much credit. It was only in the last few hours that i understood that "real life" doesn't know one damned thing about chemistry. It was only then that i realized that he cannot understand at all the significance of what Shapiro is proposing. He continues to insist on DNA forming "in an open environment" because he understood nothing of what Shapiro was on about.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

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

They do need to reproduce......

over and over [real life stupidity edited here]....

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.

When you make statements such as this real life, it shows you didn't read Shapiro at all.

You ignore his statement about containers. He doesn't restrict it to lipid membranes.

One of the forms of reproduction mentioned by Shapiro is this

Quote:

A system that functions in a compartment within a mineral may overflow into adjacent compartments.

Why don't you go count the compartments contained in a simple mineral deposit? Get back to us when you can tell us how many there are that are large enough to hold just a few strands of DNA let alone smaller molecules. Now imagine a slope on this mineral deposit with water periodically running down the slope. Every compartment on that slope has the possibility of catching the "overflow" from compartments above it. Water movement can easily move the molecules of the system from one compartment to another. Then it is only a matter of enough molecules and the mineral to create another system that grows. Even a slope that is 1 meter by 1 meter could have millions of compartments that could be filled. Yes, a lot of them might not be but more than your silly "over and over" would likely be filled and each compartment doesn't have only one chance to be filled. They have many chances with a single life form filling a compartment and that life form overflowing even just once a day.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
IS that your entire purpose in this discussion to only sow doubt on others research or inquiries?

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

I've stated:

Quote:
DNA cannot self assemble in the open environment, even as a successor to a postulated earlier replicator.

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

Dishonesty alert!!! No one here has suggested that DNA self-generated. Everyone has been referring to a much simpler molecule. This has been repeated to you over and over.

And you'll note that I also referred to 'earlier replicators'.

DNA eventually has to be produced, but Shapiro included the likelihood of RNA and any proposed RNA substitutes (earlier , simpler replicators) self generating in the open environment as being so unlikely that he has abandoned that line of research.

Don't lecture me about 'dishonesty alert' when you purposefully ignore the context of my immediate statement as well as the numerous times that Shapiro's broader condemnation of the 'RNA world' hypothesis has been brought to your attention.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
[
He says they reproduce, but they don't (can't) replicate.

They do need to reproduce......

over and over [real life stupidity edited here]....

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.

When you make statements such as this real life, it shows you didn't read Shapiro at all.

You ignore his statement about containers. He doesn't restrict it to lipid membranes.

One of the forms of reproduction mentioned by Shapiro is this

Quote:
A system that functions in a compartment within a mineral may overflow into adjacent compartments.
Why don't you go count the compartments contained in a simple mineral deposit? Get back to us when you can tell us how many there are that are large enough to hold just a few strands of DNA let alone smaller molecules. Now imagine a slope on this mineral deposit with water periodically running down the slope. Every compartment on that slope has the possibility of catching the "overflow" from compartments above it. Water movement can easily move the molecules of the system from one compartment to another. Then it is only a matter of enough molecules and the mineral to create another system that grows. Even a slope that is 1 meter by 1 meter could have millions of compartments that could be filled. Yes, a lot of them might not be but more than your silly "over and over" would likely be filled and each compartment doesn't have only one chance to be filled. They have many chances with a single life form filling a compartment and that life form overflowing even just once a day.

And as the compartments fill with water, it will destroy some of the key compounds necessary to produce DNA.

If by some miracle a few strands of dna WERE produced, the water would destroy it.

'Imagine'.

yeah that's what you do.

0 Replies

All organisms consist of cells and every cell is descended from another cell except the first one which was either created or poofed spontaneously.

Each cell is bounded by a membrane and contains a nucleus in which is the genetic material. The cytoplasm runs the cell's operations. The membrane separates (for an ideal infinitessimal moment to allow for mind experiments) the cytoplasm from the outside world.

The cell requires energy from this "outside" continually in order to maintain itself and respond to and alter its environment from which the energy is drawn. (From glucose usually as chemical energy)

Thus the cell is an open system thermodynamically kept in a steady state by expenditure of this energy. It does permanent battle with the 2nd law which is that things tend to disorder.

So it is the energy source that is primary.

Theological questions about DNA being designed by a mind are as pointless as questions about internal combustion engines being designed by a mind. Neither DNA nor ICEs are possible without the energy source.

Both are a function of energy.

Did a mind design energy?

What we know about DNA is a miniscule amount compared to what might be known about it. Pretending to know something significant about it by the mere talking about it pseudo-knowingly is a classic example of cosmic impiety.

You might as well discuss architecture in terms of bricks.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
IS that your entire purpose in this discussion to only sow doubt on others research or inquiries?

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

I've stated:

Quote:
DNA cannot self assemble in the open environment, even as a successor to a postulated earlier replicator.

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

Dishonesty alert!!! No one here has suggested that DNA self-generated. Everyone has been referring to a much simpler molecule. This has been repeated to you over and over.

And you'll note that I also referred to 'earlier replicators'.

DNA eventually has to be produced, but Shapiro included the likelihood of RNA and any proposed RNA substitutes (earlier , simpler replicators) self generating in the open environment as being so unlikely that he has abandoned that line of research.

Don't lecture me about 'dishonesty alert' when you purposefully ignore the context of my immediate statement as well as the numerous times that Shapiro's broader condemnation of the 'RNA world' hypothesis has been brought to your attention.

I don't really argue my points on the basis of other peoples' opinions. I may from time to time quote somebody, but, for the most part, I argue the issues themselves, rather than make arguments from authority.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
IS that your entire purpose in this discussion to only sow doubt on others research or inquiries?

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

I've stated:

Quote:
DNA cannot self assemble in the open environment, even as a successor to a postulated earlier replicator.

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

Dishonesty alert!!! No one here has suggested that DNA self-generated. Everyone has been referring to a much simpler molecule. This has been repeated to you over and over.

And you'll note that I also referred to 'earlier replicators'.

DNA eventually has to be produced, but Shapiro included the likelihood of RNA and any proposed RNA substitutes (earlier , simpler replicators) self generating in the open environment as being so unlikely that he has abandoned that line of research.

Don't lecture me about 'dishonesty alert' when you purposefully ignore the context of my immediate statement as well as the numerous times that Shapiro's broader condemnation of the 'RNA world' hypothesis has been brought to your attention.

I don't really argue my points on the basis of other peoples' opinions. I may from time to time quote somebody, but, for the most part, I argue the issues themselves, rather than make arguments from authority.

So, are you still holding out for an 'RNA world' miracle , (i.e. an independent self replicating molecule self-generates in a gradual fashion in the open environment), or are you gonna go with small molecules like Dr Shapiro?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

And as the compartments fill with water, it will destroy some of the key compounds necessary to produce DNA.

If by some miracle a few strands of dna WERE produced, the water would destroy it.

'Imagine'.

yeah that's what you do.

Who is imagining things?

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/activities/extraction/

A simple experiment to extract DNA from peas and it uses water. What? I thought real life told us water destroys DNA. Well, it seems real life doesn't know his chemistry.

Oh look another experiment to extract DNA from a Kiwi fruit.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/kitchenscience/exp/how-to-extract-dna-from-a-kiwi-fruit/
Surprise. It requires water and the water doesn't destroy it.

and even more....
http://sciencemole.wordpress.com/2007/05/07/how-to-extract-dna/

http://museumvictoria.com.au/scidiscovery/dna/howto.asp

http://seplessons.ucsf.edu/node/222

Wow.. All those people telling us we can separate DNA using water without the water destroying the DNA. I guess real life forgot to tell scientists what was supposed to happen.

0 Replies

Actually it was Dr Shapiro again:

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

http://www.edge.org/documents/life/shapiro_index.html

One of your links even says 'If you want to save the DNA, then transfer it out of the water and into alcohol.'

hmmm wonder why it says this?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
IS that your entire purpose in this discussion to only sow doubt on others research or inquiries?

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

I've stated:

Quote:
DNA cannot self assemble in the open environment, even as a successor to a postulated earlier replicator.

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

Dishonesty alert!!! No one here has suggested that DNA self-generated. Everyone has been referring to a much simpler molecule. This has been repeated to you over and over.

And you'll note that I also referred to 'earlier replicators'.

DNA eventually has to be produced, but Shapiro included the likelihood of RNA and any proposed RNA substitutes (earlier , simpler replicators) self generating in the open environment as being so unlikely that he has abandoned that line of research.

Don't lecture me about 'dishonesty alert' when you purposefully ignore the context of my immediate statement as well as the numerous times that Shapiro's broader condemnation of the 'RNA world' hypothesis has been brought to your attention.

I don't really argue my points on the basis of other peoples' opinions. I may from time to time quote somebody, but, for the most part, I argue the issues themselves, rather than make arguments from authority.

So, are you still holding out for an 'RNA world' miracle , (i.e. an independent self replicating molecule self-generates in a gradual fashion in the open environment), or are you gonna go with small molecules like Dr Shapiro?

Are you still holding out for a magical person in the sky with a lightning bolt, based on an ancient text by our primitive ancestors?

0 Replies

Nice comeback.

You know, I really DO have a sense of humor, even concerning myself.

I can admit to believing in miracles, but can you?

0 Replies

I can rl.

It was one miracle that I came in where I did. I can't say I fancy much too far on either side of the 20th century. Or outside the English countryside.

When I think of the teeming millions the world has contained and the teeming millions the Old Man shot forth at Eastertime it was a miracle alright. Goodstyle.

0 Replies

Say, Bubba . . . "real life," you haven't answered my question. Why is it, do you think, that Shapiro is attracted to a small molecule hypothesis with reference to lipid spheres?

Do you understand what is important about that, chemically?

I've asked you several times . . . it seems that you're dodging this. Must be a deal breaker for ya, huh?

********************************

I'll be glad when we get the ignore feature, and can ban Spurious from pissing all over these threads.

0 Replies

The "ignore " feature can be set up by a moderator now set. It does ttake a little getting used to but iuts worth it.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Actually it was Dr Shapiro again:

Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Chemistry at New York University wrote:
http://www.edge.org/documents/life/shapiro_index.html

One of your links even says 'If you want to save the DNA, then transfer it out of the water and into alcohol.'

hmmm wonder why it says this?

Yes, real life, what does water do? Oh.. it evaporates if the mineral isn't immersed in water. Periodic movement of water across can capture and move chemicals to another container (a microscopic pore on the surface of the mineral) before the water evaporates leaving the chemicals behind in the new container. You will probably try to argue that the water will wash out all the chemicals but anyone that has ever immersed a stone in water knows you don't wash off all the dirt doing that. You can't even do it by running water over it for a period of time. And we are not talking visible dirt on a rock, we are talking chemicals in a pore that is small enough that the water running across it can't completely enter the pore because of surface tension. The water can only take the top layers of the chemicals from the pore.

So, we have a container on a mineral surface that has a chemical process that can be classified as life. Water periodically can capture part of this chemical process and move it to other containers. The transfer is quite easy and simple. It only requires something that happens often on earth. Water flows across a mineral.

Lets assume the chances are 1 in a million of the chemical process moving to another pore each time water flows across the mineral face. With a million pores that means the first time, you get 2 life forms, The next time you get 4, and so on until you fill enough of the pores that it can't double.

Now we only need to add amino acids to our process. If a container starts to picks up amino acids that combine to form longer chains then those RNA strands could be transferred the next time the chemical process is transferred. We now have millions of pores that each time water flows can fill with the chemical process and RNA or can add RNA to an existing chemical process. But what if the RNA in one of those pores puts together the right chain to make DNA? The DNA doesn't have to be replicator for a life form because it is protected in a container and it won't be destroyed.

If water happens to transfer the DNA from one pore to another what happens? The DNA could mutate. Oh.. wait. What did Shapiro say? Water can cause DNA to do just that because it deteriorates the end. What happens when it then adds on to the end again. It changes. Now we have created a system that is not only possible to mutate DNA but is in fact likely to do just that.

Who needs to believe in miracles real life? Only you it seems.

0 Replies

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know