DNA Was Designed By A Mind

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?

Why is it, do you think, that Shapiro is attracted to a small molecule hypothesis with reference to lipid spheres?

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

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

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.

parados wrote:

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.

Your story has so many holes in it, it's hard to know where to start.

Your story has so many holes in it, it's hard to know where to start.

I've said they don't stand on their own. The lack of logic and lack of evidence when viewed thru the standard claimed for them,(i.e. the scientific method), condemns them.

real life wrote:

Your story has so many holes in it, it's hard to know where to start.

You don't know where to start? Start with the first "hole" you think exists.

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

Your story has so many holes in it, it's hard to know where to start.

You don't know where to start? Start with the first "hole" you think exists.

Let's start with where you propose millions of microscopic holes into which water ( a very small molecule) 'can't completely enter', but much larger macro-molecules (including DNA and RNA, apparently) can.

"Evidence and logic" in what respect?

Is it in respect of a nice comforting tight little circle who daren't come out and meet the people on their own terms. As if evidence and logic can exist independently of the society.

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

Your story has so many holes in it, it's hard to know where to start.

You don't know where to start? Start with the first "hole" you think exists.

Let's start with where you propose millions of microscopic holes into which water ( a very small molecule) 'can't completely enter', but much larger macro-molecules (including DNA and RNA, apparently) can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_tension

I don't propose it. Science shows it to be true.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00946.htm

Answer me directly now. What evidence is there for the God Theory? I absolutely defy you to give me a rational, direct answer.

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

Your story has so many holes in it, it's hard to know where to start.

You don't know where to start? Start with the first "hole" you think exists.

Let's start with where you propose millions of microscopic holes into which water ( a very small molecule) 'can't completely enter', but much larger macro-molecules (including DNA and RNA, apparently) can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_tension

I don't propose it. Science shows it to be true.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00946.htm

I'm quite familiar with surface tension. That's why I said your description was bogus.

Surface tension is caused by the tendency of water molecules to hold to one another (or 'attract' one another as your link describes it).......

......not repel one another!

Have you ever filled a cup partially with water and had additional water molecules 'unable to enter' (repelled) due to surface tension?

no

Brandon wrote-

Quote:

Answer me directly now. What evidence is there for the God Theory? I absolutely defy you to give me a rational, direct answer.

I have never said anything one way or the other about that.

I have, however, explained, in a neutral fashion as befits the context, that the Materialist Theory of Mind posits the notion that ideas are physical objects. Thus if a person has God in his mind God exists in that mind. If the idea is strong the God is strong. If it is in a lot of people's minds at the same time and strong, as in an Easter Sunday Service in Rome, the God becomes powerful medicine.

If the idea is not a physical object then it must be something immaterial the properties of which we know nothing about. And an atheist couldn't allow such an entity as it could easily be called a soul.

It seems to me that it behoves a materialist to agree with that.

That is much simplified of course.

farmerman uses the religious technique in trying to make more powerful the notion that I'm a dipshit. It's like a Gregorian Chant but without music or style.

We can't see atomic particles. We infer that they exist from effects we read off instruments. And only in the last hundred years in a stretch of human existence of 2-4 million years.

The powerful medicine I referred to is an effect irrespective of a subjective attitude to it.

I never said anything about the existence or non existence of God. I consider both positions to constitute cosmic impiety. (Arrogance).

Without the idea of God the effect would I think be the same as the effect we see in animals which don't have such ideas. In which case you wouldn't be discussing the matter.


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The idea that there is no God can only be a derivative of the idea that there is a God.

What effects do you think would be manifested if there was no collective idea of God as there wasn't once. You are using a world made from the idea of God to deny God.

What unifying collective idea would your position produce?

You are confusing materialism with art (psychology).

And you have failed to deal with the nature of an idea. Whether it is a material entity or not, which was the main point.

If you're saying that God exists if enough people think he does, then I would say that's nonsense.

As with evolution or any other theory of any other purported fact, it would be unreasonable to believe that it's true without some decent evidence for it. You have simultaneously demanded that we meet a very high standard in demonstrating that evolution is the correct explanation, while supporting a rival theory and refusing absolutely to provide any evidence that it's correct.

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

Your story has so many holes in it, it's hard to know where to start.

You don't know where to start? Start with the first "hole" you think exists.

Let's start with where you propose millions of microscopic holes into which water ( a very small molecule) 'can't completely enter', but much larger macro-molecules (including DNA and RNA, apparently) can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_tension

I don't propose it. Science shows it to be true.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00946.htm

I'm quite familiar with surface tension. That's why I said your description was bogus.

Surface tension is caused by the tendency of water molecules to hold to one another (or 'attract' one another as your link describes it).......

......not repel one another!

Have you ever filled a cup partially with water and had additional water molecules 'unable to enter' (repelled) due to surface tension?

no

A cup is NOT microscopic. (Read my second link about how a small hole in a container will not leak water because of surface tension.)

A drop of water flowing over a microscope container will not fill the container because surface tension will keep the water together as a drop and not allow it to fill the container.

So much for your attention to the scientific method.